Whether a son conducting business with father can claim that it is a joint family business if father has started the said business with his self-acquired property?

In Ramaswami Nayakar v. Raja Padayachi MANU/TN/0247/1925 : AIR1926Mad963 , it has been held that the question whether the self-acquired property of a member of a joint Hindu family has been thrown by him into the common stock or not is a question of fact. In Pearey Lal v. Nanak Chand MANU/PR/0008/1948 : (1948) 61 L.W. 437, the Privy Council had to consider a case where a father, who had no ancestral property, started a business and his son claimed that by reason of his association in the business the character of the business became a joint family business. It has been held in that decision that the onus of proving that the separate business of the father became joint family business, especially when there is no-ancestral property, is heavy on the son and that it is for the son to prove that he was associated in the business in such a manner as to raise a reasonable inference that the father intended to make and did make his business a joint family business.  {Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 21.11.1969

 P.L.N. Paramasivam Vs.  P.K. Ramaswami Gounder and Ors.

Print Page

Whether coparcener can throw his self-acquired property into common stock if there is no joint family property?

Sri R. Gopalaswami Iyengar, appearing for the contesting respondents 1 and 2 urged that as there was no joint family property, there could be no question of Narayana Pillai throwing his self-acquired property into common stock. Such a contention has been negatived in several decisions. Thus in Damodar Krishnaji Nirgude v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/MH/0103/1961 : [1962] 46 ITR 1252 (Bom) , it was held that it was open to a member of a Hindu undivided family to throw his self acquired property into the family hotchpot even though there was no joint or ancestral property. Again in Natesan v. Commissioner of Income Tax I.L.R. (1964) Mad. 502 , this contention has been negatived in the following passage:

It is now well settled that a separate property of a coparcener under the Hindu Law can acquire the character of a joint family property of the coparcener by his own voluntary act of putting it in the common stock or blending it with joint family properties. The process of blending connotes that there are two sets of properties, separate and joint family, and they are pooled so that the exclusive rights of the coparcener holding the separate property are abandoned; then there emerges only one kind of property, the whole of it becoming joint family property. Where, however, there exists no joint family property and the coparcener owning separate property desires to have it treated as joint family property, it will be open to him to do so and the Hindu Law does not require any formality to achieve this result. The act of the coparcener by which this conversion of separate property into joint family property takes place is described as throwing the property into the common stock or as treating the separate property as joint family property. It is, however, not necessary that there should be pre-existing common stock before it can be said that the separate property is thrown into it. In a case where the family has no joint family property, the common stock is a mere fiction and throwing into the common stock is only a convenient phraseology to describe the process of conversion. A clear, unequivocal and unambiguous declaration by the holder of the separate property that it is joint family property would sufficiently impress that property with the joint family character.

As pointed out in the above passage, the very concept of blending of self acquired property with ancestral or joint family property presupposes the existence of a joint family property. But it is clear from what we have already stated that the conversion of self-acquired property into a joint family property by what is known as throwing into common stock is only an application of the principle of abandonment or waiver of his rights by a coparcener with intention to treat his property as joint family property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 21.11.1969

 P.L.N. Paramasivam Vs.  P.K. Ramaswami Gounder and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Sadasivam, J.

Citations: (1970) 1 MLJ 592

Print Page

Whether there can be blending of self acquired property with joint family property by making declaration in Income tax return?

B. Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar Vs. Jupudi Kesava Rao (died) & Ors., MANU/AP/0032/1994 : AIR 1994 AP 134, where it has been held as under: -

"30......By declaring his status in the Income Tax and Wealth-tax returns as "Hindu Undivided Family", it could not be said that the first defendant had blended his private properties with that of the joint family properties....

31. Declaration of status in the Income Tax returns is not always decisive of the real status of the individual.... "

C. Madan Lal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, MANU/RH/0069/1968 : [1969] 74 ITR 84(Raj) where it has been held as under:-

20.....In our opinion, in the absence of any other circumstances, the filing of returns and getting his property taxed on the basis of joint family property were not sufficient to show an intention of abandonment of his claim on the part of Sukhdoo. It has been observed in Govind Narain Mathur v. Mohini Devi MANU/RH/0153/1960 : ILR [1960] Raj 1219 that a statement in connection with the assessment of Income Tax that certain property was joint family property may be made for the purpose of getting some advantage under the law relating to Income Tax and that it could not be evidence of any unequivocal intention on the part of the assesses to waive his interest in the self acquired property.... "

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 2223/2013, 

Decided On: 04.02.2019

Aarshiya Gulati  Vs.  Kuldeep Singh Gulati and Ors.

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that there was joint family property if there was HUF Bank Account?

HUF BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT RELATABLE TO ANY PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IRRELEVANT

86. As regards the HUF Bank account opened on 22nd November, 1985, it is not relatable to any property. It is an admitted position that the Public as well as the Private Limited Companies, Partnership Firms and Family Members of the defendant No. 1 had been filing independent Income Tax Returns. Therefore, the said HUF Bank account is wholly irrelevant.

87. In any event, showing in Income Tax Return, a HUF Bank account is meaningless unless the sufficient income is shown from nucleus of Hindu Joint Family Properties. The consistent legal position is that once there is no sufficient nucleus in Savings Bank Account, as in the present case, it will not make a Business/Property as a Hindu Joint Family property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 2223/2013, 

Decided On: 04.02.2019

Aarshiya Gulati  Vs.  Kuldeep Singh Gulati and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan, J.

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC) 577 Del

Print Page

Supreme Court on Basic concept of blending of self acquired property

 Even the reasons given by the High Court that as the loans
were taken on the suit properties for borewell, crop loan, electric
motor pump set loan, jewel loan by all the three joint family
members, namely Sengoda Gounder, Ramasamy and
Subramanian and, therefore, there was a blending of the suit
properties into joint family properties also, cannot be accepted.
As all the three were residing together and some loans might
have been taken by the family members residing together, by
that itself, it cannot be said that there was a blending of the suit
properties into joint family properties. The law on the aspect of
blending is well settled that property separate or self acquired
of
a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the

character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by
the owner into the common stock with the intention of
abandoning his separate claim therein; but to establish such
abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be
established. Clear intention to abandon the separate rights in
the property must be proved. Even abandonment cannot be
inferred from mere allowing other family members also to use
the property or utilisation of income of the separate property out
of generosity to support the family members. 

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 45364537 OF 2019

S.Subramanian .Vs  S. Ramasamy 

M.R. SHAH, J.
Citation: (2019) 6 SCC 46,2019 (7) Scale 254
Dated:May 01, 2019.

Print Page

NOTES ON JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY UNDER HINDU LAW

Mitakshara school divides property into two classes,viz:

1) Unobstructed heritage:- Property in which a person acquires an interest by birth is called unobstructed heritage. It is so called because the accrual of the right to such property has no obstruction. Thus property inherited by a hindu from his father,father's father,or father's father's father, is unobstructed heritage. Their right to such property arises from mere fact of their birth in the family and as soon as they are born,they become coparceners of such property along with their paternal ancestor. Ancestral property is therefore is unobstructed heritage.

Read important Judgment on ancestral property:
Click here

Print Page

Whether plea of blending can be considered at appellate stage without pleading?

The alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff along with the parents and defendant were staying in the suit house. The plaintiff by his conduct had allowed blending of the property in question and thrown to the same joint family stock. The suit property became a joint family property of the parties. He cited decision in the case of Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another vs. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and another, AIR 1961 SC 1268, Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 2230, Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs. and others, AIR 2008 SC 2033, Bancha Bhol and others vs. Saria Bewa and others, AIR 1973 Ori.18, Babaji Dehuri and others vs. Biranchi Ananta and others, 1996 (I) OLR-451.
The plea of doctrine of blending is essentially a question of fact. In the absence of factual foundation and evidence, the same cannot be gone into in second appellate stage.There is no foundational fact with regard to blending of the property by the plaintiff. Thus, the plea of doctrine of blending cannot be accepted at the second appellate stage.

Orissa High Court

Hadibandhu Patnaik vs Giridhari Patnaik Since Dead ... on 6 November, 2017

P R E S E N T:

 DR. JUSTICE A.K. RATH

Print Page

Leading Judgment on doctrine of blending of property

 The next question that falls for consideration is whether
‘C’ Schedule property was blended with the joint family property and
treated as part of the joint family property. To consider the issue, it
is profitable to discuss the law on this point. The decision in the
case of Ram Janam Singh –v- Stae of Uttar Pradesh and
another, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1722, enumerates the doctrine of
blending as follows:
6. To pronounce on the question of law presented
for our decision, we must first examine what is the
true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the
“common stock” or “common hotchpot”. It must be
remembered that a Hindu family is not a creature
of a contract. As observed by this Court in
Mallesappa Bendeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa9
that the doctrine of throwing into common stock
inevitably postulates that the owner of a separate
property is a coparcener who has an interest in the
coparcenary property and desires to blend his
separate property with the coparcenary property.
The existence of a coparcenary is absolutely
necessary before a coparcener can throw into the
common stock his self-acquired properties. The
separate property of a member of a joint Hindu
family may be impressed with the character of joint
family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him
into the common stock with the intention of
abandoning his separate claim therein. The
separate property of a Hindu ceases to be a
separate property and acquires the characteristic of
a joint family or ancestral property not by any 
physical mixing with his joint family or his
ancestral property but by his own volition and
intention by his waiving and surrendering his
separate rights in it as separate property. The act
by which the coparcener throws his separate
property to the common stock is a unilateral act.
There is no question of either the family rejecting or
accepting it. By his individual volition he
renounces his individual right in that property and
treats it as a property of the family. No longer he
declares his intention to treat his self acquired
property as that of the joint family property, the
property assumes the character of joint family
property. The doctrine of throwing to the common
stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshra School
of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws is
separate property into the common stock, he
makes no gift under Chapter VII of the Transfer of
Property Act. In such a case there is no donor or
donee. Further no question of acceptance of the
property thrown into the common stock arises.”
In Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi and others Vs.
Lakkireddi Lakshmama, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1601, the
decision describes the principles of doctrine of blending as follows:-
“9. Law relating to blending of separate property
with joint family property is well-settled. Property
separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint
Hindu family may be impressed with the character of
joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the
owner into the common stock with the intention of
abandoning his separate claim therein: but to
establish such abandonment a clear intention to
waive separate rights must be established. From the
mere fact that other member of the family were
allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or
that the income of the separate property was utilised
out of generosity to support persons whom the
holder was not bound to support, or from the failure
to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot
be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness will
not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal
obligation.
Thus, to sum up the
principles decided in the aforesaid decisions, it can be said that in
order to establish that the separate or self-acquired property of a
coparcener is blended with a joint family property following
ingredients have to be established.
1. There must be a coparcenery joint family in
existence;
 2. Property in question must be separate or self
acquired of a Hindu coparcener;
 3. He allows such property to be used by joint
family;
 4. Such action of the coparcener must be out of his
own volition;
 5. He must have an intention of waiving,
surrendering and/or abandoning his claim of
separate rights over such property.
 HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
 F.A. NO. 82 OF 2000

Rama Chandra Prusty Vs Bidyadhar Prusty and others 

 Date of Judgment: 11.12.2015

P R E S E N T:
 SHRI JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)730 Orissa

Print Page

How to prove that separate property of father was thrown into hotchpotch?

The surviving point for consideration was whether there was anything brought on the record to show that the property held by the 2nd defendant as inherited from his father Shankar, had been impressed with the character of joint family property. A separate property can always be treated as joint family property by merger with admitted joint family properties existing or otherwise by throwing the separate property into the hotchpot. A case of blending or merger or deviations from the understanding of obstructed and unobstructed heritage would require to be specifically pleaded and proved. There can be no presumption that the property inherited by the father under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 held as such was treated by the father as joint family property along with his sons. Such treatment must be expressly pleaded and there must be evidence of such treatment showing that the father had allowed all his sons to enjoy the properties not merely under the bounty of the father but as a right obtaining to them by the treatment made possible by the father by his conduct. The contentions made before the Court are far-fetched from what is necessary to be established at the trial. The dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the Appellate Court was under the circumstances justified and there is no scope for interference.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Kumar And Anr vs Gurmeet Singh And Anr on 7 December, 2015

                      

  RSA No. 2660 of 2015 (O&M)

Citation;AIR 2016(NOC)273(P&H)

Print Page

How to prove blending of separate property with joint family property?

 The law relating to blending of separate property with joint family property is well settled. Property, separate or self-acquired of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property, if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein, but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established.

10. The contention of the learned counsel that in the absence of there being any joint family property, the separate property of the plaintiff's father could not be impressed with the character of joint family is noted for rejection. The law in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to the decision of our High Court in Dr.Keswal Krishan Mayor Vs. Kailash Chand Mayor and Ors., 1977(1) 2 Delhi 97, wherein it was held thus:

"As I understand the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it does not lay down that a separate property could not be impressed with the character of joint Hindu family property in the absence of the existence of a joint family or coparcenary property. The existence of joint family property is not necessary before a member of the family throws his self-acquired property in the common stock. The existence of a joint estate is not an essential requisite to constitute a joint family and a family which does not own any property, movable or immovable, may, nevertheless be joint. If the existence of the coparcenary property is considered as a pre-requisite for throwing the property into the common hotchpotch or common stock, then, only those joint families who are already possessed of ancestral property, can receive self-acquired properties of coparceners. If the arguments is taken to its logical conclusion, it will lead to absurdities or a situation that no joint Hindu family which does not own any ancestral property can ever acquire any property from any individual coparcener who intends to impress the self-acquired property with the character of a joint family property. The term „blending‟ may suggest the existence of a nucleus but that does not mean that it is not possible to conceive of coparceners impressing their self-acquired properties with the status of the joint family property unless it is shown that the joint Hindu family is already possessed of a nucleus or ancestral stock or ancestral property. There is no reason to limit the cases of blending to only those families owning coparcenary property. Throwing the self-acquired property in the common stock or hotchpotch is a well-recognized incidence of the joint Hindu families".

Delhi High Court

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma And Ors. on 29 October, 2013

Author: M. L. Mehta

Print Page

Whether hindu female can blend her property with property of joint family?

The theory of blending under the Hindu Law involves the process of a wider sharing of one's own properties by permitting the members of one's joint family the privilege of common ownership and common enjoyment of such properties. But, while introducing. new sharers in one's exclusive property one does not by the process of blending efface oneself by renouncing one's own interest in favour of others. To blend is to share along with others and not to surrender one's interest in favour of others to the exclusion of oneself. If a Hindu female who is a member of an undivided family impresses her absolute exclusive property with the character of joint family property, she creates new the exclusion of herself because not being a to demand a share in the joint family She has no right for survivorship and is of the joint family property. Her right to property is contingent, inter alia, on a husband and his sons. Under s. 3 (2) and claimants to her property to coparcener she has no right property by asking for a partition. entitled only to be maintained out demand a share in the joint family partition taking place between her (3) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, her right to demand a partition in the joint family property of the Mitakshara joint family accrued on the death of her husband. Thus, the expression 'blending' is inapposite in the case of a Hindu female who puts her separate property, be it her absolute property or limited estate, in the joint family stock.

It is well settled that a Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family and it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in _the joint or coparcenary property. These are the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent (see Mulla's Hindu Law, 14th Ed. p. 262, para 213). A Hindu female therefore is not a coparcener. Even the right to reunite is limited under the Hindu law to males (Mulla, p. 430, para 342). It does not therefore militate against the fundamental notions governing a Hindu joint family that a female member of the joint family cannot blend her separate property, even if she is an absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property.

In our opinion, therefore, the income of Rs. 21,544 from Nishat Talkies was not assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family on the basis that the appellant had blended it with the joint family property.

Supreme Court of India

Pushpa Devi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New ... on 30 August, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2230, 1978 SCR (1) 329

Print Page