Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as "joint tenants" but as "tenants-in-common".

2008 (7) SCC 46 

(Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and others) in support of his argument. The relevant passage would run thus:-

"22. For the purpose of assigning one's interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as "joint tenants" but as "tenants-in-common". The decision of this Court in SBI, therefore, is not applicable to the present case.