https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290607 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. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 18:02:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290607 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290607