Coparcenary property

1. It would be wrong (as per me) to say the employment will be his “personal property” How ? Infact it will benefit the HUF employing one of the coparceners as an employee because salary paid to the employee will be deducted in the HUF income while you calculate the IT. Help yourself with this question by accessing ref.: Rajkumar Singh Hukumchandji Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. [78 ITR. 33]

2. The concept of blending the self-acquired property of the coparcener of a joint Hindu family with his self-acquired property or throwing it into a common stock of the HUF is an established doctrine of Hindu Law, duly recognized by Courts in a number of cases. In Rajanikanta Pal v. Jagmohan Pal: AIR 1923 PC 57, Privy Council held that;

“where a member of a joint Hindu family blends his self-acquired property with property of the joint family, either by bringing his self-acquired property into a joint family account, or by bringing joint family property into his separate account, the effect is that all the property so blended becomes a joint family property.”

Also refer Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and Ors. vs. Desai Mallappa and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1268 the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:-

“The rule of blending postulates that a coparcener who is interested in the coparcenary property and who owns separate property of his own may by deliberate and intentional conduct treat his separate property as forming part of the coparcenary property. If it appears that property which is separately acquired has been deliberately and voluntarily thrown by the owner into the joint stock with the clear intention of abandoning his claim on the said property and with the object of assimilating it to the joint family property, then the said property becomes a part of the joint family estate; in other words, the separate property of a coparcener loses its separate character by reason of the owner's conduct and get thrown into the common stock of which it becomes a part. This doctrine therefore inevitably postulates that the owner of the separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property  with the coparcenary property. There can be no doubt that the conduct on which a plea of blending is based must clearly and unequivocally show the intention of the owner of the separate property to convert his property into an item of joint family property. A mere intention to benefit the members of the family by allowing them the use of the income coming from the said property may not necessarily be enough to justify an inference of blending; but the basis of the doctrine is the existence of coparcenary and coparcenary property as well as the existence of the separate property of a coparcener.”

In this regard, Supreme Court in Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1970 SC 1722

“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. As soon as he declares his intention to treat his self acquired property as that of the joint family, the property assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. No formalities are required in order to place the self-acquired property into the common hotchpotch of the HUF and the question in each case is of the intention on the part of owner on separate property as to whether he intended to abandon his separate right and give it the property a character of joint family property.”

3. Each case has to be considered having regard to its individual facts and surrounding circumstances.

@ TAJ JOBSINDIA

Sir here coparcenar don't have any intention of mixing his self acquired property with that of joint family preoprty. Here the brother and sisters of coparcenar feel jealous of him and wants that the income of the doctor should be included in the joint family property. How brother and sister will prove it? Any case law on this?

The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. 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 or from funds from joint family.

You may ref.: Makhan Singh (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Kulwant Singh A.I.R. (2007) S.C. 1808

OR

Madras High Court

Mr.Malla Naicker @ Singari vs Miss. Jeeva (Minor) on 8 August, 2011

Dated : 8.8.2011

OR

Mulla Hindu Law, 17th Edition Volume 1, Page 344 in paragraph No.233

OR

Ld. R Ramachandran in Expert section ref. this reply to him !