Hindu Joint Family

Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar Professor of Law & Commonwealth Fellow Head, Centre f
or Family Law NALSAR University of Law, Hyd. vijenderkumar@yahoo.com
Hindu Joint Family and its Composition

A Hindu Joint Family consists of a common ancestor and all his lineal male desce
ndants up to any generation together with the wife or wives (or widows) and unma
rried daughters of the common ancestor and of the lineal male descendants. The c
ommon ancestor is necessary for bringing a joint family into existence; for its
continuance common ancestor is not a necessity. The death of common ancestor doe
s not mean that the joint family comes to an end.
Common Ancestor
Son Wife
Son
Son
Wife
Daughter
Daughter (M)
S S S
S D S S
D
S Wife
D S Son S Wife S Wife D Daughter M Married # Members of Hindu Joint Family
S S
S SS S S S S D S
D
S
S
Male S D
Female
Karta/Manager S S S Coparceners Members
Hindu Joint Family and its Composition

A Hindu joint family is not a corporate. A Hindu joint family has no legal entit
y distinct and separate from that of the members who constitute it. It is not a
juristic person either. Hindu joint family is a unit and in all matters it is re
presented by its Karta. Within its fold no outsider, except by adoption, can be
admitted by agreement or otherwise. It confers a status on its members which can
be acquired only by birth in the family or by marriage to a male member.
Hindu Joint Family and its Composition

Hindu joint family is also different from a composite family. Composite family w
as unknown to Hindu law. The institution of composite family is a creature of cu
stom and owes its constitution to an agreement. Where two or more families agree
to live and work together, pool their resources, throw their gains and labour i
nto the joint stock and shoulder the common risk, there comes into existence a c
omposite family. A single male or female cannot make a Hindu Joint Family even i
f the assets are purely ancestral.
Hindu Joint Family and its Composition

For the purposes of assessment of tax, the Revenue Statutes use the expression, `H
indu Undivided Family'. This appears to be slightly different from the definition
of a Hindu Joint Family. Example: for the purpose of Revenue Statutes, there can
be undivided family consisting of a man, his wife and daughters or even of two
widows of a sole surviving coparcener. This definition is relevant for the purpo
se of determining in which category the income should be assessed.
Hindu Joint Family and its Composition

In Surjeet v. W.T.Commr, AIR 1976 SC 109, the Supreme Court said that the expres
sion `Hindu Undivided Family' in the Wealth Tax Act is used in the sense a Hindu Joi
nt Family is understood in the Hindu law and a Joint Family may consist of a sin
gle male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of
the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu Undivided Family as assessable unit
must consist of at least two male members.
Presumption of Jointness:
Presumption of Jointness: This has been an accepted proposition from the beginni
ng, that every Hindu Family is presumed to be a joint family. (Jagannath v. Loka
nath, AIR 1981 Ori. 52). The presumption is that the members of a Hindu Family a
re living in a state of jointness, unless contrary is proved. The normal state o
f every Hindu Family is that it is joint family, presumably joint in Food, Worsh
ip and Estate.

Presumption of Jointness:

Normally a joint family is joint in food, worship and estate, yet if it is not j
oint in food or worship or in estate, in any one or all of them, it does not nec
essarily imply that it has ceased to be a joint family. Thus where three brother
s owning a joint family house were working at three different places, it was hel
d that they constituted a joint family; simply because they are not living joint
ly does not lead to an inference that they do not constitute a joint family. (Ke
thaperumal v. Rajendra, AIR 1959 Mad. 409).
Common Ancestor
Son Wife
Son Wife S S
Son
Wife
Daughter
Daughter (M)
S S S
S D S S
DS
S S S SS S S
D Wife
S S
D
S
S Wife S
S S D S
S Wife S D
S
S
S
Presumption of Jointness:

There is no presumption that joint family possesses joint property. (K.O.Reddy v

. V.N.Reddy, AIR 1984 SC 1171; Chander v. Godhani, AIR 1981 Pat. 43). There is n
o presumption that the property held by a member of joint family or a business c
onducted by a coparcener is joint family business. In Hindu law existence of joi
nt property is not a condition precedent to the existence of joint family.
Karta:

Who can be a Karta? Father- so long he is alive, after his death it passes to th
e senior most male member. Uncle- if coparcenary consists of uncle and nephews.
Elder brother- if coparcenary consists of brothers. Junior most male member- the
junior member owes his appointment to the agreement or consent of the coparcene
rs. Coparceners may withdraw their consent any time. More than one Karta- there
can be more than one Karta. Female member as Karta- female member cannot be a Ka
rta of the Hindu Joint Family. (Commr. of IncomeTax v. Seth Govind Ram, AIR 1966
SC 2).
Female member as Karta:

In Kesheo v. Jagannath, AIR 1926 Nag. 81, the Court held the view that mother, t
hough not a coparcener, can be, in the absence of adult male members, Karta of t
he joint family, and her acts will be binding on others as that of a Karta.
Ratio of the case: that any adult members may be the manager of the joint family
, and in case of need a step-mother could bind her step-son, who was a minor, by
alienation of the joint family property, in whatever character she purported to
act.

Female member as Karta:

In Gangoli v. H.K.Channappa, AIR 1983 Kant. 222, the Karnataka High Court expres
sed the view that the mother as natural guardian of her minor sons can manage th
e joint family property and appointment of a guardian by Court will not be justi
fied. This is obviously the situation where father is dead and there is no adult
male member.
Female member as Karta:

In Commr. of Income-Tax v. Seth Govind Ram, AIR 1966 SC 2, the Supreme Court aft
er reviewing the authorities, took the view that the mother or any other female
could not be the Karta of the joint Hindu family and therefore cannot alienate j
oint family property. This is in acceptance with the text of Hindu law. Accordin
g to Hindu sages (authorities) only a coparcener can be a Karta. Since females c
annot be coparcener, they cannot be the Karta of the joint Hindu family.
Karta:

Position of a Karta in the Hindu joint Family: Relationship between Karta and th
e other members of the family are not: - that of Principal or agent; - that of m
anager (commercial firm); Karta: head of the family; act on behalf of other member
s; Partner: he is not like a partner; Power: his powers are almost unlimited; Trust
ee: he is not a trustee; Reward: no reward for his services.
Karta:

Rights/Powers of the Karta: right of management; right to see the income; right
to representation of the family in: legal matters; social matters; religious matter
s etc. right of compromise; right to refer a dispute for arbitration; right of a
cknowledgment; right to contract debts; loan on promissory notes; right to enter
into contract etc.