Hindu Undivided Family - No Presumption That Business Run By Karta In Tenanted Premise Is Joint Family Asset : Supreme Court:

8th Apr,2021

Hindu Undivided Family - No Presumption That Business Run By Karta In Tenanted Premise Is Joint Family Asset : Supreme Court:

'The agreement of occupancy is an autonomous agreement than the joint Hindu privately-run company's Just on the grounds that a business was controlled by a karta of a Hindu Undivided Family in a tenented reason, there is no assumption that it is a joint Hindu privately-owned company, held the Supreme Court in a new judgment. "There can be assumption of Hindu joint family property if the property has been gained by the male part or if the equivalent has been treated as joint Hindu family. In any case, no such assumption is connected to a business action did by a person in a rented premise", noticed the Supreme Court for the situation Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board. The case was a common allure identifying with the tenure rights over a property claimed by the Bihar Sunni Wakf Board. The offended party had documented a suit looking for assertion of occupancy rights based on a case that his incredible granddad had been maintaining a lodging business as an inhabitant of the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board's essential safeguard was that the occupancy had been given up by the replacement of the first inhabitant and the inn business was stopped and thus the offended party had no rights over the property. In regard to this contention, the offended party battled that the acquiescence of tenure was invalid, as it was a one-sided give up made by the 'karta' without observing the privileges of the coparacenors of the joint Hindu family. The Suit was at last moved to the Wakf Tribunal, which dismissed the supplication of the offended party, tolerating the acquiescence of tenure. This was switched by the Patna High Court in update by the offended party. The High Court choice was tested in the Supreme Court by an ensuing inhabitant, as she was coordinated to be seized by the HC to draft the offended party. To choose the legitimacy of the acquiescence of the occupancy, the Supreme Court needed to consider the issue whether the business run in the rented property was a joint privately-owned company.

A bench containing Justices Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta addressed the issue in negative. The seat held that the High Court failed in reasoning that the business run by the inhabitant was a joint Hindu privately-run company. Tenure was an individual right vested in the extraordinary granddad of the offended party, which was subsequently given up by the offended party's granddad. Occupancy was entered in singular limit and not in the limit as karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. "An examination of current realities on record would show that it was an agreement of occupancy entered upon by extraordinary granddad of the plaintiff.Even if the incredible granddad was keeping up the family out of the pay created from the inn business, that itself would not make the other relatives as coparceners in the inn business. It was the agreement of occupancy which was acquired by the granddad of the offended party who later gave up it for the Wakf Board. The tenure was an individual right vested with the granddad of the offended party who was skilful to give up it to the property manager. The High Court has unmistakably failed in law by holding that since the granddad was an inhabitant, the tenure is a joint family resource. The agreement of occupancy is an autonomous agreement than the joint Hindu privately-run company". Alluding to a point of reference, the Supreme Court held that there is no assumption under Hindu Law that business remaining for the sake of any individual from the joint family is a joint business regardless of whether that part is the supervisor of the joint family, except if it very well may be shown that the business in the possession of the co-parcener grew up with the help of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the income of the business were mixed with the joint family bequest. The judgment in G. Narayana Raju (Dead)by his LegalRepresentative v. G. Chamaraju and Ors AIR 1968 SC 1276 was depended on for this suggestion.