A Hindu Joint family was in possession of a nucleus sufficient to make fresh acquisitions. Certain fresh acquisitions were acquired in the name of the members of the family in charge of the management of the joint property. Could the fresh acquisitions be treated as part of the joint Hindu family property? Decide.
Question: A Hindu Joint family was in possession of a nucleus sufficient to make fresh acquisitions. Certain fresh acquisitions were acquired in the name of the members of the family in charge of the management of the joint property. Could the fresh acquisitions be treated as part of the joint Hindu family property? Decide.[DJS 1982] Find the answer… Read More »
Question: A Hindu Joint family was in possession of a nucleus sufficient to make fresh acquisitions. Certain fresh acquisitions were acquired in the name of the members of the family in charge of the management of the joint property. Could the fresh acquisitions be treated as part of the joint Hindu family property? Decide.[DJS 1982]
Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A Hindu Joint family was in possession of a nucleus sufficient to make fresh acquisitions. Certain fresh acquisitions were acquired in the name of the members of the family in charge of the management of the joint property. Could the fresh acquisitions be treated as part of the joint Hindu family property? Decide.]
Answer
It is settled that every Hindu family is joint in terms of food, worship, and estate. Where there is an absence of proof of division, it is legally presumed that the family is joint. And such a joint family is presumed to be continuous be joint unless otherwise mentioned. However, there is no presumption that a family possesses joint property or any such property because a family is joint. Merely being a joint family does not indicate that the property owned by the members of such a family is a joint family property.
To present a property as joint, it must be established that the family was in possession of some property with an income through which the property could have been acquired or that the property has been purchased by the joint fund of the family or that the family is in possession of the property jointly. Such alternatives must be brought to the court as evidence only, there is no legal presumption for such.
In the case of Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379, it was held:
“Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property”.
Where any coparcener voluntarily throws his self-acquired property into the joint fund with the intention of abandoning all separate claims, it would be joint property to be divisible among all the members as was said in Kanta v. Shiv Charan, 10 MIA 190.
Such an intention need not be expressed, it is sufficient if the owner blends it as one general account without discriminating between the two in such a way that a clear intention to waive his separate rights may be established. When the head of a joint Mitakshara family kept only one account of ancestral and self-acquired property and sued to amalgamate the funds, it was held in Munshi Inder v. Kunwar Shiam ILR 40 Cal. 470 that the self-acquired property became joint property.
It was established in the Narain v. Kshama Raju, AIR 1968 S.C. 976 that blending is not done by the primary act of blending but is possible only by deliberate and intentional acts of the owners of the property. Such an act can be done by express words or by express conduct of the parties. The act of blending is unilateral. When a member of a joint family mixes his property with joint family property, he does not do the act of gift, nor is its a gift. There is neither any donor nor donee, nor does it attract the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
In Lakireddi v. Lakireddi, AIR 1963 S.C. 1601, the Supreme Court observed that the law relating to the 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 a joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim thereto, but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established.
From the mere facts that the members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or other that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was not bound to support, or from the failure to maintain accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of or kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation.
However, in Krishna v. Commr. I.T., AIR 1977 S.C. 2230 it was established that all the members of a joint Hindu family cannot create a joint property by throwing their money in common stock. The property belonging to the coparceners only can create a joint family property by blending them into common stock.
As per the rule of blending under Hindu law, when a coparcener willingly throws his independently acquired property into joint family stock it becomes a part of the joint family stock. So in the presence of an ancestral nucleus, if a member of joint family property acquires a property in his own name, it shall be presumed to be joint family property.
In the present case given under the question, it is crystal clear that the said Hindu joint family was in possession of a nucleus sufficient to make fresh acquisitions. It is mentioned that certain fresh acquisitions were acquired in the name of the members of the family in charge of the management of the joint property. As per the law and on the basis of the cases discussed above it can be safely concluded that these fresh acquisitions are to be treated as part of the Joint Family Property.