Joint family business requires proof of ancestral character; partnership and separate liability were upheld on the facts.

A family business is not treated as a joint Hindu family business merely because family members jointly own property or conduct dealings; it remains a contractual partnership unless it is shown to be a heritable asset descending from a common ancestor. On the facts, the Tankiwala concern was a partnership, the Sargodha concern was a separate business, and the presence of a stranger partner supported that conclusion. Kanhaya Lal was not proved to be a partner in Sargodha or liable for its debts. The claim against Ram Narain's sons was time-barred under the Limitation Act, and Har Bhagwan's sons were not liable for the Sargodha debts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tankiwala business was an ancestral joint Hindu family business or a contractual partnership; (ii) Whether the Sargodha firm was a branch of the Tankiwala firm or an independent business concern; (iii) Whether Kanhaya Lal was a partner in the Sargodha firm and liable for its debts; (iv) Whether the claim against the sons of Ram Narain was barred by limitation and whether the sons of Har Bhagwan were liable for the Sargodha debts.

Issue (i): Whether the Tankiwala business was an ancestral joint Hindu family business or a contractual partnership.

Analysis: The existence of joint ownership of some property and joint dealings did not by itself establish an ancestral business descending from a common ancestor. A business started by members of a family could remain a contractual partnership governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and would not become joint Hindu family business unless it was shown to be a heritable asset descended from the ancestor. The evidence did not show that the alleged family business at Tankiwala had such an ancestral character, and the surrounding circumstances were consistent with partnership rather than coparcenary.

Conclusion: The Tankiwala business was held to be a contractual partnership, not a joint Hindu family ancestral business.

Issue (ii): Whether the Sargodha firm was a branch of the Tankiwala firm or an independent business concern.

Analysis: The documentary material, including the account entries and correspondence, showed that money was advanced to individual partners for the purposes of the new concern and that the Sargodha business was treated as a separate entity. The presence of a stranger as a partner also negatived the claim that the Tankiwala firm, as such, had become a partner in the Sargodha firm. The evidence pointed to a regular partnership distinct from the Tankiwala concern.

Conclusion: The Sargodha firm was held to be an independent business concern and not a branch of the Tankiwala firm.

Issue (iii): Whether Kanhaya Lal was a partner in the Sargodha firm and liable for its debts.

Analysis: The oral evidence was vague and inconclusive, whereas the written correspondence and business records described the Sargodha firm as consisting only of Ram Narain, Ladha Ram and Narsingh Das. There was no satisfactory proof that Kanhaya Lal had entered into the partnership or assumed its liabilities. Mere occasional presence at the shop did not establish partnership status.

Conclusion: Kanhaya Lal was held not to be a partner in the Sargodha firm and was not liable for its debts.

Issue (iv): Whether the claim against the sons of Ram Narain was barred by limitation and whether the sons of Har Bhagwan were liable for the Sargodha debts.

Analysis: On the death of Ram Narain, the partnership stood dissolved, and any claim against his sons based on his partnership liability had to be brought within the prescribed limitation period. The suit was filed beyond that period, attracting Article 106 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Since the Sargodha firm was an independent partnership and the family branches were not jointly liable as such, the sons of Har Bhagwan could not be made answerable for the debts of that firm.

Conclusion: The claim against the sons of Ram Narain was barred by limitation, and the sons of Har Bhagwan were not liable for the Sargodha debts.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish ancestral or family-wide liability for the Sargodha debts, and the decree against Kanhaya Lal was set aside, while the plaintiffs' broader appeal for relief against the remaining defendants also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A family business is not treated as ancestral joint Hindu family business unless it is shown to be a heritable asset descending from a common ancestor, and a firm cannot become a partner in another firm merely because its members advance money or manage the later concern.

---