Saturday 2 February 2013

Mere fact that the members of the family are living away from each other does not means that the family is not a joint family

http://hanumant.com/articles/Umang%20Singh%20-%20Devolution%20of%20the%20property%20of%20a%20Female.pdf

 Mitakshara defines the concept of property in a socialistic 
manner where as Dayabhaga perceives it in  an individualistic manner. In Raguaddha v. Brogo 
Kishoro1876 IA 153

it has been held by the Apex Court that the Hindu family is not joint only in estate but
also in food and worship. Mere fact that the members of the family are living away from each 
other does not means that the family is not a joint family. The court in Bhagwan Dayal v. Ms. 
Reoti Devi,6 AIR 1962 SC 287

held that there is a general presumption that every Hindu family is a joint family 
unless contrary is proved. The contrary here refers to the general partition of the property.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment