COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN RAGHUNATHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and C.P. and Berar, Lucknow.

(2.) THE question referred is as under: Whether on the facts of the case Mt. Kesar Bai was competent to enter into a contract of partnership in her representative capacity as karta of the undivided family consisting of herself and her two minor sons ?

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that a woman is incompetent to act as karta of a joint family, under Hindu law, as she is not a coparcener. It is conceded that she is a member of the joint family, but inasmuch as she does not take interest by birth and ha3 no right to take by survivorship, she is admittedly not a coparcener and hence she can never be recognised as karta. The contention, in other words, comes to this, that the managership of a joint Hindu family is something like a close preserve for males and no female can ever intrude into it, even though no adult male has been left in the family. The contention is, in our opinion, too widely stated and, so far as we know, there is no authority under Hindu law to support it,