Blending by a Hindu female is unavailable without coparcenary status, but a renunciation may still operate as a gift.

A Hindu female member of a joint family cannot invoke the doctrine of blending to impress her separate property with the character of joint family property, because blending is confined to a coparcener who has an interest in coparcenary property and intentionally throws it into the common stock. On that basis, the income from the asset could not be treated as assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family as blended property. However, an unequivocal declaration renouncing separate rights in favour of the family, when accepted, may operate as a gift. The declaration in question was therefore treated as a gift in favour of the Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Hindu female member of a joint Hindu family can impress her separate property with the character of joint family property by blending. (ii) Whether the declaration made by the appellant amounted to a gift in favour of the Hindu undivided family.

Issue (i): Whether a Hindu female member of a joint Hindu family can impress her separate property with the character of joint family property by blending.

Analysis: The doctrine of blending applies to a coparcener who has an interest in coparcenary property and deliberately throws separate property into the common stock with the intention of abandoning the separate claim. A Hindu female who is a member of a joint family but is not a coparcener does not possess the legal capacity to claim blending in the strict sense. The fact that the property is absolute property rather than limited property makes no difference to that conclusion.

Conclusion: The appellant could not blend her separate property with joint family property, and the income from Nishat Talkies was not assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration made by the appellant amounted to a gift in favour of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The declaration unequivocally renounced the appellant's separate rights in the identified assets in favour of the joint family. On the facts, the transfer was accepted by the family, and the transaction had the character of a gift rather than a blending of property. The income arising from the gifted property was therefore liable to be assessed according to that finding and the applicable law.

Conclusion: The declaration constituted a gift in favour of the Hindu undivided family.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the gift issue and failed on the blending issue, leaving the assessee without relief on the assessment of income on the footing of blending but with the declaration treated as a gift.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to blend separate property with joint family property is confined to a coparcener; a Hindu female who is not a coparcener cannot effect blending, though an unequivocal renunciation in favour of the family may operate as a gift.

---