HUF - Hindu Undivided Family
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)
Hereditary tenancy
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) - Hereditary tenancy - Even if a male member had taken premises on rent, he is tenant in his individual capacity and not as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family in the absence of any evidence that Karta was doing the business for and on behalf of Joint Hindu Family - Contract of tenancy is an independent contract than the joint Hindu family business.
Hereditary tenancy - Payment of rent or the Ration Card does not prove that the tenant was carrying business as a Joint Hindu Family Business
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) - Hereditary tenancy - Payment of rent or the Ration Card does not prove that the tenant was carrying business as a Joint Hindu Family Business - There can be presumption of Hindu joint family property if the property has been acquired by the male member or if the same has been treated as joint Hindu family - But no such presumption is attached to a business activity carried out by an individual in a tenanted premise - Payment of rent is not indicative of the fact that the hotel business was by the joint Hindu family. G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju & Ors. 1968 SCeJ 001, AIR 1968 SC 1276, P.S. Sairam & Anr. v. P.S. Rama Rao Pissey & Ors.(2004) 11 SCC 320, referred.
Held,
A perusal of the facts on record would show that it was a contract of tenancy entered upon by great grandfather of the plaintiff. Even if the great grandfather was maintaining the family out of the income generated from the hotel business, that itself would not make the other family members as coparceners in the hotel business. It was the contract of tenancy which was inherited by the grandfather of the plaintiff who later surrendered it in favour of the Wakf Board. The tenancy was an individual right vested with the grandfather of the plaintiff who was competent to surrender it to the landlord. The High Court has clearly erred in law by holding that since the grandfather was a tenant, the tenancy is a joint family asset. The contract of tenancy is an independent contract than the joint Hindu family business.
Contract - If a member of the HUF enters into contract with a stranger, he does so in his individual capacity
HUF – Contract - If a member of the HUF enters into contract with a stranger, he does so in his individual capacity - The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger - A member of a Hindu undivided family has the same liberty of contract as any other individual: it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act - Partnership is under Section 4 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all: if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family.
1970 SCeJ 001 Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukamchand Mannalal & Co. (1970) 2 SCC 352
referred in 2021 SCeJ 406
Contract - When a manager of a joint family enters into a partnership, that would not ipso facto makes the other member of his family as partners.
HUF – Contract - When a manager of a joint family enters into a partnership, that would not ipso facto makes the other member of his family as partners. Held, “In their Lordships' opinion, the law in respect of the matter now under consideration is correctly stated in Mayne's Hindu Law (9th Edn.) at page 398, as follows: “Where a managing member of a joint family enters into a partnership with a stranger the other members of the family do not ‘ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the Indian Contract Act. In such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with the stranger: the partnership will be governed by the Act.” In this passage reference is made to the Indian Contract Act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. It is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said Act have been repealed and are now embodied in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Even assuming, therefore, that Virappa was the manager of his joint Hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the Chetties in that year would not “ipso facto” make the other members of his family partners …” .
P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar & Ors. v. Chockalingam Pillai & Ors., AIR 1934 Privy Council 192. referred in 2021 SCeJ 406
Notions of Hindu law, or Mohamedan law, or any other personal law cannot be imported into the rights created by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
Hindu law or Mohamedan law – Tenancy – Rights - Notions of Hindu law, or Mohamedan law, or any other personal law cannot be imported into the rights created by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Ram Awalamb & Ors. v. Jata Shankar & Ors. AIR 1969 All. 526
Held,
“8. Hindu joint families have existed from times immemorial and they exist even now. However, it is by no means necessary that every Hindu Joint family should be possessed of joint family property also. Where any property is ancestral or it is acquired by all the members of a joint Hindu family or after having been acquired by one member of the joint family only it is thrown in the common stock it is regarded to be joint family property or coparcenary property. Until partition takes place, or only one member of the family is left, without having any male issue, the coparcenary property remains with the family and upon the death of any one member only his interest devolves on the surviving coparceners. The Karta or manager of the family alone has the right to transfer the property either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.
xx xx xx
45. Our conclusions can, therefore, be briefly summarised as follows:—
(1) Where members of a joint Hindu family hold bhumidhari rights in any holding, they hold the same as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. The notions of Hindu law cannot be invoked to determine that status.
(2) Where in certain class of tenancies, such as permanent tenure holders, the interest of a tenant was both heritable and transferable in a limited sense and such a tenancy could, prior to the enforcement of the Act, be described as joint family property or coparcenary property, the position changed after Act 1 of 1951 came into force. Thereafter the interest of each bhumidhar, being heritable only according to the order of succession provided in the Act and transferable without any restriction other than mentioned in the Act itself, must be deemed to be a separate unit.
(3) Each member of a joint Hindu family must be considered to be a separate unit for the exercise of the right of transfer and also for the purposes of devolution of bhumidhari interest of the deceased member.
(4) The right of transfer of each member of the joint Hindu family of his interest in bhumidhari land is controlled only by Sec. 152 of the Act and by no other restriction. The provisions of Hindu law relating to restriction on transfer of coparcenary land, e.g., existence of legal necessity, do not apply.”
referred in 2021 SCeJ 406
Joint business - There is no presumption under Hindu Law that business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint business
HUF – Joint business - There is no presumption under Hindu Law that business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint business even if that member is the manager of the joint family, unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate - It is well established that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint business even if that member is the manager of the joint family. Unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. in 1968 SCeJ 001, G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1276
HUF Karta - Powers of Karta of a Joint Hindu Family
“Alienation by manager of coparcenary property for legal necessity. – (1) The power of the manager of a joint Hindu family to alienate the joint family property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir, as defined by the Judicial Committee.
(2) The manager of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate for value, joint family property, so as to bind the interest of both adult and minor coparceners in the property, provided that the alienation is made for legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate. A manager (not being the father) can alienate even the share of a minor coparcener to satisfy an antecedent debt of the minor’s father (or grandfather) when there is no other reasonable course open to him (Dharmaraj Singh v. Chandrasekhar Rao, (1942) Nag 214). It is not necessary to validate the alienation that the express consent of the adult members should have been obtained.
In Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad, (1879) 6 IA 88, p. 101, the Judicial Committee stated that it was not clearly settled whether where an alienation is made by a manager for a legal necessity, but without the express consent of the adult coparceners, the alienation is binding on them. However, in later decisions of the same tribunal, the view taken is that if legal necessity is established, the express consent of the adult coparceners is not necessary (Sahu Ram v. Bhup Singh, AIR 1917 PC 61). As to alienation by manager for joint family business.
Where any such transaction has been entered into for legal necessity by a manager, it would be deemed to be on behalf of the family and would bind it. The position is not worsened by the fact that a junior member joins the transaction and the joining by him is abortive by reason of his minority (Radha Krishnadas v. Kaluram, AIR 1967 SC 574).”
Hindu Law by Mulla (para 240) 22nd Edition.
Joint property - It is a well-established doctrine of Hindu Law that property which was originally self-acquired may become joint property if it has been voluntarily thrown by the coparcener into joint stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims upon it.
HUF - Joint property - It is a well-established doctrine of Hindu Law that property which was originally self-acquired may become joint property if it has been voluntarily thrown by the coparcener into joint stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims upon it. The doctrine has been repeatedly recognised by the Judicial Committee (See Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dayal, (1876) 3 Ind App 259 (PC) and Lal Bahadur v. Kanhaia Lal, (1907) 34 Ind App 65 (PC). But the question whether the coparcener has done so or not is entirely a question of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It must be established that there was a clear intention on the part of the coparcener to waive his separate rights and such an intention will not be inferred merely from acts which may have been done from kindness or affection (See the decision in Lala Muddun Gopal v. Khikhindu Koer, (1891) 18 Ind App 9 (PC). For instance, in Naina Pillai v. Daivanai Ammal, AIR 1936 Madras 177 where in a series of documents self- acquired property was described and dealt with as ancestral joint family property was not sufficient but an intention of the coparcener must be shown to waive his claims with full knowledge of his right to it as his separate property. . The important point to keep in mind is that the separate property of a Hindu coparcener ceases to be his separate property and acquires the characteristics of his joint family or ancestral property, not by mere act of physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property, but by his own volition and intention, by his waiving or surrendering his special right in it as separate property. A man's intention can be discovered only from his words or from his acts and conduct. When his intention with regard to his separate property is not expressed in words, we must seek for it in his acts and conduct. But it is the intention that we must seek in every case, the acts and conduct being no more than evidence of the intention.
1968 SCeJ 001, G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1276 ,
2004 SCeJ 001 P.S. Sairam & Anr. v. P.S. Rama Rao Pissey & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 320.
Joint property – Business - As far immovable property is concerned, there would be a presumption that the same belongs to joint family, provided it is proved that the joint family had sufficient nucleus at the time of its acquisition, but no such presumption can be applied to a business
HUF - Joint property – Business - As far immovable property is concerned, there would be a presumption that the same belongs to joint family, provided it is proved that the joint family had sufficient nucleus at the time of its acquisition, but no such presumption can be applied to a business Held, “7. Crucial question in the present appeal is as to whether business which was conducted by defendant No. 1 was his separate business or it belonged to joint family, consisting of himself and his sons. It is well settled that so far as immovable property is concerned, in case the same stands in the name of individual member, there would be a presumption that the same belongs to joint family, provided it is proved that the joint family had sufficient nucleus at the time of its acquisition, but no such presumption can be applied to business ”.
2004 SCeJ 001 P.S. Sairam & Anr. v. P.S. Rama Rao Pissey & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 320.