Skip to main content

Joint Hindu Family

 JOINT HINDU FAMILY


Joint Hindu Family: All those persons who are linearly descended from a common ancestor and

includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases to be a member of father’s family

on marriage and becomes a member of husband’s family.

There should be at least two members to constitute a joint Hindu family and the the existence of

joint estate is not absolutely necessary to constitute a joint family, and it is possible to have a joint

Hindu family which does not own any estate.


In N. V. Narendranath v. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, the Court held that the expression

‘Hindu undivided family’ is understood in the sense the Hindu joint family is understood in

personal law of Hindu i.e. there should be at least 2 members.


The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gomedalli Lakshminarayan, after father died, the

question was whether the assessee (the son) is to be assessed as a member of Hindu joint family or

not?

It held that son’s right over the property is not absolute as the two females have the right to

maintenance over the property. Therefore, the income of assessee has to be taxed as the income of

Hindu undivided family. This is only when the property has devolved from father to son and so on

towards the last descendant who is being assessed (ancestral property). However, if the father had

acquired the property, the wife will have right in it but the son’s wife may claim her share in the

son’s part of the property but she cannot claim share as a Hindu undivided property.


Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil, held that if the last surviving coparcener

dies, a Hindu joint family is not ended. It is not going to be terminated as long it is possible in

nature to add a male mumber but contrary to that, it is a fact of law that there can be a joint family

consisting wholly of widows.


Difference between joint Hindu family and coparcener:

In relation to property: For JHF to exist, there is no need for any kind of property to exist but for a

coparcenary to subsist, there has to be an ancestral property.

JHF consists of females also. But this difference has been removed by 2005 amendment as females

are considered to be coparceners as well now.

Coparceners are member of the JHF but not all the members of JHF are coparceners.


Formation under Mitakshara Law:


A single person cannot form a coparcenary, there should be at least 2 members like JHF. A senior

most member should be there for its formation.

Coparcenary is not horizontal but linear. Wife along with husband is not going to create a

coparcenary. The wife will have a share in the property according to the rules of succession.

Four generations inclusive of the senior most male member forms a coparcenary. The generations

after the fourth will only be member of the JHF but not coparceners.

If except one all the coparceners die, he is called the sole surviving coparcener. The sole surviving

member cannot form coparcenary all by himself, there needs to be two members.

Coparcenary is limited to three generations of lineal descendants of the last holder of the property.

According to tenets of Hinduism, only descendants upto three generations would offer spiritual

rituals to the common ancestor.

A wife is not a coparcener because she is not a descendant of that JHF. As far as the share is

concerned, husband and wife will be seen as a single unit. Only unmarried woman is a coparcener

in father’s property. After marriage that right gets extinguished and the wife derives her right to the

property from husband’s side.

The children will become coparceners because they have common male ancestor.

Under Hindu Succession Act, widows for thr first time got the right in her husband’s property. Sec.

14 of the 2004 amendment gave the daughters a right to be coparcenary by birth. A wife is not a

coparcener but has a right to maintenance out of her husband’s property. Therefore, even a widow

who is succeeding her deceased husband’s share in the JHF will not be a coparcener. This was given

under Hindu Women’s right to Property Act, 1937.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree