G.D.Khosla, J. - (1.) The following two questions have been referred to us: Where a karta or manager of a joint Hindu family enters into a partnership in his representative capacity, can the family as a unit be deemed to have become a partner, and
(2.) Whether on the death of the karta of the family the partnership stands dissolved or must be deemed to continue because of the fact that the joint Hindu family continues and it has a karta, though a different person? (2) The questions have been framed in a manner which permits universal application, but it will facilitate appreciation of the matters under consideration if the facts which have given rise to this reference are briefly stated. A joint Hindu family consisted of Babu Ram, his son stranger, in a partnership. The business of the partnership was carried on in the name and style of firm Babu Ram Bindra Ban. They are the defendants in the case which has given rise to this reference. Babu Ram died on 12-5-1946 and thereafter certain liabilities were incurred by this firm. In the present suit brought by the creditors the plea taken by the defendants was that Babu Ram's death on 12-5-1946 dissolved the partnership and therefore the other members of the joint Hindu family were not liable for any debts incurred on behalf of the partnership. The plaintiff's plea was that Bagu Ram had entered the partnership as the karta and representative of the joint Hindu family and so his death could not put an end to the partnership, the joint Hindu family was to be considered as a unit and a juristic person represented by its karta Babu Ram; apart from being the karta was a coparcener in the family and his death did not put an end to the existence of the joint Hindu family but merely altered its complexion to some extent; the joint Hindu family must be deemed to have entered the partnership as a unit or person and therefore Babu Ram;s death made no difference to the constitution of the partnership and the partnership continued as before; in this view of the matter, the surviving members of the joint Hindu family must be held to be liable for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. It was these pleas which gave rise to the two questions which were referred to the Full Bench.
(3.) The first point to consider is what is the exact nature of a joint Hindu family in law; is it to be deemed as a single entity and a juristice person within the meaning of S. 3 (42) of the General Clauses Act? Clause (42) does not give an exhaustive definition of "Person" and is in the following terms: "'person' shall include any Company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not." The contention made on behalf of the plaintiff is that a joint Hindu family is a "body of individuals" and therefore it is to be deemed as a person; S. 4 of the Partnership Act permits partnership between 'persons', a joint Hindu family acts through its karta just as a firm or corporation acts through its manager, and so when the karta joined the partnership, he did so on behalf of the joint Hindu family and the joint Hindu family being a person became a partner in the new firm.;