ures Hl ea Family Law Lec wee sation purposest But ist til tis born s not a member of he jin family For vty, existence for certain purposes under Hind I : a ee aneavs wea deows we 5 b igs 2d together with his wife, 1, his, » member. He In Fig. 2.1, 4 isthe senior mo" ae me gous 5 and 5, and thei wives Pieody a 3 grandson 5, will form a Hindu joig sons $, and S, and their wives /? ret great-grandson 5, and his wile WW, Bree family of A till they s ee oxo ik (De soUnnoR iL they area family. D,, D, and D, al be mace the members of 4 s joint family and will be _ ‘a joint family. for the fitting ential condition. However, omg, On their marriage they W’ r of their husband’s joint fam! To, into existence. ‘male, member is.an. &sscO°= = the death of this male membe, ep em ‘ “int family comes into existence it continues desPIe $ Fresh members are added by ‘marriage of lineal male descendants and birth of chili fa ahe family while the existing members may die, as death is a natural pheno ‘The continuation of the joint family is not restricted in point of time and until it ends by thy rm such family, it continues. death af all members ofthe family capable 0 f0 “The memibers of a joint family are bound together by the fundamental principle» sapindaship or family relationship, which is the essential feature of this institution. The cui tat knits the members of the family is not property but the relationship with one another: Mitakshara doctrine of join family property is founded upon the existence ofan undivi ray as a corporate body.’ The first requisite is the family unit, and the posse aa family property isthe secondary requisite. Such body with its heritage, i ere aw and cannot be created by acts of parties save inrso far that by oe ee affiliated as a member of that corporate family. In Genco i SOR AS eASeS TL ‘uterine brother is a member of the Hindu joint family in Nep be evidence to the contay OUSTER OF A MEMBER FROM THE JOINT FAMILY ‘An unmarried daughter hea r ceases to be a part of her father’s joii i i emi ba a eng See ye ae ee house permanently. The positi : i anent! Position has neti irs jy pox mage a = eee ‘ Saas CITA. 1962 Mad 146 6. Gan Savg 'v Narasimhulu Maistei, 2 Ser SgutBl Sonran hod i (1902) ILR 25 Mad 149, 154 Debi Singh Bh Ale 1883) ILR 7 Bom 467, 47 ieee 966 SC 292, ae 8. Jagannath Rangnath v Jagannath Agarwalla, Ghawte, 20 j seme a Chandradip?* vy Ayyappan ’ 1973 Ker 192; 1 AIR 1978 (1940) 1 Mad Ly 19s Cal 187; Abdulla Ku . Umakan Balsa at urapu Venkatanarasimha AiR. 1940 Ni, IR 1 at ‘Scanned wih CemScanner‘Scanned wih CamScanner‘Scanned wih CamScannerle Pe | _Hindu Joint Family a member starts living separ a if a mem 8 Separately C4 nT his share as a member of Hinds jee: (seine as y. en , ul Presumption under Hindu law that unless ! S presumed to a joint Hindu family.) | vf ans Gomedalli Lakshminarayan® fie du joint family consisted of the fath yamine ven went lyon le me ee eee he is o-be assessed as an individual or as the Kara oF tha 2 sie penber: The importance of this RESTON ay is a it aly ote sche would be allowed raters exemption if he was taxed as the mana os OF 8 Hine fail than if ‘he is ie iS an individual. It also means that if the Hindu joint tari ad fat the inv idal members are not able tobe charged in respec of what each member receives &S his or her share of the joint income. The court held that he was t be shea ihe Karta of the Hindu undivided family. Explaining the concept of a Hindu undivided family and a coparcenary and the distinction between the two, the court observed that while ‘acopareenary the presence of at sate io eae eae in the joint family i i Pi joint family can continue even withaae nate onion oo inely ! (Canis ase the son wuas.competenst {0 be assessed as the Karta of his joint family. Though every Hindu family is presumed to be a joint Hindu family, the strength of the | tion necessarily varies in each case.” The presumption is peculiarly strong in the ; i | EV es of uP Court of India, reiterated the gy Su rary iS proved, every Hindu family j oil stat er of Income Tax v Ai case of father and sons,’! sons of one father and also in the case of brothers" than in case ‘feousns.¥ The further one goes from the founder of the family the presumption becomes eaker and weaker Even where one son separates from the father, the other Sons, moreso Faust they are minors, would be presumed to be joint with their father. This presumption of jointness can be rebutted by direct evidence or by course of conduct. Where an estate t ss originally ancestral belonging to a joint family, the presumption of law is that a fami | (evce joi i status and this presumption can onl) a tebutied by evidence ot HW Sf se he onus probandi lies on the pad i (such estate to prove that it is a divided family’ or the one who disputes the joi 2. Vambhai Mangalbhai Patel v Khalpabhai Mangalbhai Patel, AIR 2000 NOC 74 (Guj). 4% Adiveppa y Bhimappa, (2017) 9 SCC 586. i BARBS Bomar | 4 M Mathur ‘Baksh 2 Sate Babulal, ? AIR 1957 ). 226; 2 a a ey PC 12% Ram Gopal» Mohan Lal AI es Sh Rentchandra Singh, AIR 1973 Pat 215; Ruthmabas rai te SC 335, unto lv Dew Dayal Bri) Lal, AIR 1936 Le aparaon R17) 10m HC 44,468; Mana Mave 2 ; Me Babe pa oan. AIR 197 SC 1962 va 170. Bewa v Praflla Routray, AIR 2003 Ori 136; Panchan Singh v Ran Raj Rajeshwar Dev ; 3. Neg 983 (DB), ) Singh v Ganesha, AIR 1920 PC 46. | ‘Scanned wih CamScanner‘Scanned wih CamScanner‘Scanned wih CamScanner‘Scanned wih CamScanner.. Hindu Jo Fam ‘Family 65 of the widows of the Memb, ers joresaids & nc Joint family cannot be fi SE a . pate by way of iinet brought to ai 1 the Col ‘0 force of the Hi & birth to a m, ’ ‘ e du Suc nership to the widow, ¢ Feat Stecession Ac : oie family property in Hy Situation has change we Pipe Eantng absolute rights eA ly Property in his hands dies leaving nest NOW ifa person holding property ini nds of the widow g behind his widow and his daughter, the " and day cr nid his widow cane mee lehter even if Practically joint will be their SSessed as the head of the joint family.” Of the f ‘amily I divs p,” As Nn end if itis possible to add tale child or through adoption.” | pH position when there are only Husband and wir, ie? fe There isa conflict of judicial opinion can form a joint family. The Supreme Court Ais uestion whether a husband and wife undivided family comes into existence only h ; larried. His status was t terion ran wel eco ant occa aes individual. Thi: i ast nas te overruled by the Supreme Court in Sapa eaetn question, whether a Hindu male along with ‘fe bits oF he som can for Hindu joint family oF not, arose forthe consideration before the Madhya Pradesh i in CIT v Vishnukumar Bhaiya.* On exactly the same facts, the court held that aie the property Was received by the assessce on partition he w, didnot constitute a Hindu undivided family His status woe dna tas ange nett and ofhis marriage did not alter the position and, in the absence ofa son, the personal law of the assessee regarded him as the owner of the property received by him on Partition and the income therefrom as his individual income. The Gujarat High Court” also held that a sole surviving coparcener of a Hindu undivided family is the owner of the property, and therefore even the existence of a female member did not affect the absolute right of the male member to deal with and enjoy the property as his own as if it was his absolute The character ofthe property hat he holds as sole sunvvingempareneri analogous to that of his exclusive property and makes vidual rather than the eThe Rajasthan High Court has also held that a husbandarid wife # Hindu undivided family as a wife cannot create a charge on the husband’s property.” It is the personal obligation of the husband to maintain the wife even ‘hough he has no property. In Seth Tulsidas Bolumal v CIT,” an assessee was the Karta of joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and major son. He converted some ofhis individual properties as joint family property by a declaration. All these properties Were assessed as income of the Hindu undivided family. The joint family properties were Dittioned five years later, between the assessee and his son, each taking ahalf share, ie., ‘he father and his wife separated from the major son. For the assessment year subsequent longa v Jayabai, 216. 2 dna Bhp Pas Shenkor Ramchandra Paty AIR 1943 PC 196 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sections 8-13. s CTT (1966) 601TR 36S): (1969 2SCR7SS ‘Chhabda v CIT, (1975) 101 Vishnukumar Bhaiya, (1983) 142 re SS S3ITR 613. Rhareaawa w CIT (1964): ‘Scanned wih CamScanner‘Scanned wih CamScannerI Hindu Joint Family family prop’ on the property. Acc tughters, thy cording to the reagng easonin, i ands ofa single male, the cha ieee th ie of Sle characte ofthe poy Kar High Cou, even in faras the obligation to maintain tha tf CoParcener. The Lat of coparcenary property as fat respect to the property of wife is concerned jhupteme Court has held that as i wife extends with respect to the individual and therefore the obliestor oe sein as the self-acquired propert Personal Property ofthe f we obligation to maintain individual even though he with hig nraua! is emcee kee jpother words, the character of the fami ip Wife and daughters con anne Indy possess. The family may be a joint family bar en Seance family possesses may be his ay be a joint family but the propery ere fans Pod male with his wife arate property. Therefor, what the coc ela his separate property be. must be ssscased a a joint family but that with re a iy comprising a man and his wife." am individual. There can therefore be 3 joint The Supreme Court further held” that the ition does not become for all times ee Saree eens eerie bv, daughter depending on him, the property will Se nee te sia Ifhe marries later, his ancestral or probation uththietpapenhalaye spigaton to maintain his wife. If he begets a son that Se ee See actaby revigea the cheseciex of Jct faxily peop SF ieee daughters, the obligation to maintain them will be fastened on ae ae It eee ve daughies Hindu male oblaining a share of ancestral propery in pation rains aut ashis absolute property even. after marriage, encumbered by any obligation to maintain his wife or other dependants. In that absolute sense, it may not be his absolute property after he marries. It sheds the character of separate property and revives its character as joint family f and his wife. The obligation is with of the smaller unit consisting of himseli d not with respect to the separate or self- igation of maintaining them will be respect to the ancestral property only an Property. Conclusion ts are as follows. The authorities that joint family, even if istha though he may for the time being P oovalen have a right of maisionans te arenas his ownership from the one that Be, may have oe je dependants items ee pale pect to his separate POPE vans 191 (TR 485 DS. ‘Scanned wih CemScanner