Hindu joint family partnership: a coparcener may contract individually with the family through its karta over separate property.

A coparcener may validly contract with a Hindu joint family represented by its karta in respect of his separate property, because joint family status does not prevent a member from acting in an individual capacity. The existence of a definite family personality through the karta is sufficient to support a partnership, and the transaction does not amount to disruption of the family merely because one contracting party is also a coparcener. The contrary view, that a coparcener is incapable of entering such a partnership with the family, was rejected. The position was therefore affirmed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether a valid partnership could exist between a Hindu joint family represented by its karta and a coparcener of that family acting in his individual capacity with his separate property.

Analysis: A coparcener, while remaining joint in family status, may own and deal with separate property independently of the joint family estate. If a stranger may validly enter into partnership with a Hindu joint family through its karta in respect of separate property, there is no sound basis to deny the same capacity to a coparcener using his individual property, so long as the family is represented by a definite personality such as the karta. Such a transaction does not amount to disruption of the family, nor is it barred merely because the individual is also a member of the family. The contrary view, which treated the coparcener as incapable of contracting with the family in his private capacity, was rejected.

Conclusion: A valid partnership could exist between the karta representing the Hindu joint family and the coparcener in his individual capacity; the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A coparcener may validly enter into a partnership with his Hindu joint family represented by its karta in respect of his separate property, because family status does not prevent an individual member from contracting in a personal capacity with the family as represented by its manager.

---