1978 (8) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was of the opinion that such year was separate and it was not necessary to follow what has been accepted in earlier years and he held that the doctrine of blending can be done when the separate property which is thrown into the common stock confers benefit on the joint family and if such property involved liability, then this doctrine of blending would not be applicable because a co-parcener cannot unilaterally burden the family with his separate property involving liability under the guise of throwing it into the common stock. Accordingly, he was of the opinion that it would be incorrect to assume that the share of the assessee in the firm consisted only of income yielding assets but it equally comprised of risk and liability of paying deb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Sadhanandam and Ors., (2) and to the observations of their Lordships on page 458 with reference to the question whether any member of joint family can try to throw his liabilities into the common hotchpot, that it was not necessary for their present purpose to go into this nice question as the matter has not been gone into interest the earlier stages and the matter may be reserved for consideration on a suitable occasion. He also referred the passage appearing in paragraph 284, pp. 304 to 305 of the Book Hindu Law by N.R. Ragahavachariar, wherein the author has stated that the manager of a HUF, cannot start a new business so as to be binding upon the other members. He further referred to the passage in the same parag....