Joint Hindu family disruption and acknowledgment authority defeated extension of limitation after severance.

A joint Hindu family was held to have disrupted on 4 November 1945, as shown by documentary evidence, including a partnership deed, an income-tax endorsement, and an arbitration award and decree recording partition, together with the parties' conduct and admissions. An acknowledgment can extend limitation against family members only if it is made by the manager of a subsisting joint family; once disruption occurs, the erstwhile karta loses representative authority. No general notice of severance to creditors is required, and the creditor must satisfy himself that the signatory still has authority. The acknowledgments therefore did not bind the former members or save the claim from limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the joint Hindu family stood disrupted on 4 November 1945. (ii) Whether acknowledgments made by the erstwhile karta after disruption could bind the former members and extend limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the joint Hindu family stood disrupted on 4 November 1945.

Analysis: The finding of disruption was supported by documentary evidence, including a partnership deed reciting division, an income-tax return bearing an endorsement that the family status had changed by the end of the relevant year, and an arbitration award and decree recording partition of the family assets and business. The surrounding conduct and admissions of the parties also supported the conclusion that the family had ceased to remain joint from that date.

Conclusion: The disruption of the joint Hindu family on 4 November 1945 was proved and rightly accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether acknowledgments made by the erstwhile karta after disruption could bind the former members and extend limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing acknowledgment required the person signing to be the manager of a subsisting joint Hindu family. Once the family stood disrupted, the karta's representative capacity came to an end. The law did not cast a duty on the other members to give general notice of severance to creditors, and the creditor had to satisfy himself that the executant still had authority to represent the family. The rule urged on behalf of the appellant based on partnership principles was rejected because joint Hindu family trading does not fall within the Partnership Act in that manner.

Conclusion: The acknowledgments made after disruption did not bind the former members or save the claim from limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the family had already separated before the acknowledgments in question, and those acknowledgments could not extend limitation against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment can extend limitation against members of a joint Hindu family only if it is made by a manager of a subsisting joint family; after disruption, the erstwhile karta lacks representative authority, and no general notice to creditors is required to preserve the effect of severance.

---