9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1946 and thereafter certain liabilities were incurred by this firm. In the present suit brought by the creditors the plea taken by the defendants was that Babu Ram's death on 12-5-1946 dissolved the partnership and therefore the other members of the joint Hindu family were not liable for any debts incurred on behalf of the partnership. The plaintiff's plea was that Bagu Ram had entered the partnership as the karta and representative of the joint Hindu family and so his death could not put an end to the partnership, the joint Hindu family was to be considered as a unit and a juristic person represented by its karta Babu Ram; apart from being the karta was a coparcener in the family and his death did not put an end to the existence of the joint Hindu family but merely altered its complexion to some extent; the joint Hindu family must be deemed to have entered the partnership as a unit or person and therefore Babu Ram;s death made no difference to the constitution of the partnership and the partnership continued as before; in this view of the matter, the surviving members of the joint Hindu family must be held to be liable for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. It was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used this argument to show that a joint Hindu family cannot have a partnership by itself as long as it remains a joint Hindu family. (5) It is only, however, in a limited sense that a joint Hindu family can be said to be a juristic person. A joint Hindu family is more of a condition or state than an entity. The property of a joint Hindu family may be joint. It may own a joint business or the family may possess no property at all and there is no presumption in law that it does possess joint property. The manager of the family acts on behalf of the joint Hindu family, but he does not Act as an agent in the legal sense. this is clear from the fact that a manager is liable not only to the extent of his share in the joint Hindu family property when he entered into contract but is liable personally also. His separate property is liable as well as his share in the joint family property. As regards the other coparceners, however, they are liable only to the extent of their interest in the family property unless, of course, any individual member, being an adult, has become a party to the contract. The coparceners of a joint family are also liable in tort but only to the extent of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these cases is Maharaj Kishen v. Har Gobind, AIR 1914 Lah 517. The head-note to this case is somewhat misleading. The facts are that five persons signed a partnership deed. The partnership was between Maharaj Kishen who was a stranger to the family on the one hand and two firms, Ganga Ram-Jamna Das and Basheshar Lal-Har Gobind, on the other. One of the partners of the firm Ganga Ram-Jamna Das was Munna Lal, a member of the joint Hindu family. It was alleged that on the death of Munna Lal the partnership dissolved. On the other hand, it was contended that Munna Lal had joined the firm on behalf of the joint Hindu family, and since the family had become a partner, Munna Lal's death made no difference to the case. It was held by the Judges that Munna Lal's death did not put an end to the partnership; but on a reading of the judgment it appears that the joint Hindu family consisted of Munna Lal and his nephew Piyari Lal. Piyari Lal had also signed the partnership deed and, therefore, the view taken was that on Munna Lal's death Piyari Lal continued the partnership on behalf of the family because he had already signed the deed. The judgment proceeds on the ground that Piy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the authorities prove, and it is practically conceded in this case, can be validly formed. But, apart from this answer, it may be pointed out that though in its nature a joint Hindu family may be fleeting and transitory, it has been regarded as capable of entering through the agency of its karta, into dealings with others. Without accepting the view of some eminent Hindu Judges that a Hindu joint family is, in its true nature, a 'corporation' capable of a continuous existence in spite of fleeting changes in its constitution, it is enough to state that for the purpose of such a transaction effected through the medium of its karta, it has been for a long time past, regarded as an entity capable of being represented by its manager.' There is nothing in Hindu law to prevent a member of a joint family becoming a partner with a stranger. Whether a karta becomes a partner in his own right and incurs liabilities only personally or whether a joint family becomes a partner is always a question of fact and must be decided on the circumstances of each case. The learned Chief Justice found that the karta had joined the partnership as representing the joint family. (8) Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joined a partnership. The family consisted of himself and his children by two wives. His sons by the first wife were majors, but his sons by the second wife were minors. After his death the major sons by his first wife continued the business and certain liabilities were incurred by the partnership business. It was held that the minor sons who did not continue the business were not liable for these moneys. Because the partnership had automatically dissolved on the death of the manager. Pichappa Chettiar v. Chokalingam Pillai, AIR 1934 PC 192, is another authority for the view that 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 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. Another authority for this view is Gangayya v. Venkataramiah, ILR 41 Mad 454: (AIR 1918 Mad 37). R. P. Mookerjee J. pointed out in Sm. Lilabati Rana v. Lalit Mohan Dey, AIR 1952 Cal 499, that the proposition stated in paragraph 308 of Maynes' Hindu Law was generally accepted. This paragraph w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the joint family. It is difficult to reconcile this position with that of Chhotelal and Bansilal being also partners in the firm in their individual capacity, which can only be in respect of their separate or divided property. If members of a coparcenary are to be regarded as having become partners in a firm with strangers, they would also become under the partnership law partners inter se, and it would cut at the very root of the notion of a joint divided family to hold that with reference to coparcenary properties the members can at the same time be both coparceners and partners. (9) We, therefore, find that although in a sense a joint Hindu family has been looked upon as a juristic person, it is only in a very restricted sense that this notion can be applied to a joint family. Under the Income-tax law a joint Hindu family is to be treated as a person, but under Hindu law the joint Hindu family cannot be treated as a corporation for all purposes. In particular, where the question of entering into partnership with strangers is concerned, it has been held in a larger number of cases that it is only the karta who becomes the member of the partnership and not the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
