NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW II

TOPIC: GAINS OF LEARNING IN HINDU JOINT FAMILY

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

PRANJAL SINHA Prof. Saubhagya Bhadkaria

2021 BALLB 40

March 2023
 CERTIFICATE

I, Pranjal Sinha S/o Dr. Shalabh Sinha Roll Number 2021 BALLB 40 Enrollment Number A-2337 do
hereby declare that the Project titled “Gains of Learning in Hindu Joint Family” is an outcome of my own
independent research endeavor and has been carried out under the guidance Prof Saubhagya Bhadkaria.
Literature relied on by me for the purpose of this Project has been fully and completely acknowledged in
the footnotes and bibliography. The Project is not plagiarized and all reasonable steps have been taken to
avoid plagiarism. Similarity Index as per the Turnitin Report is____%. In case, my project is found to be
plagiarized, the course teacher shall have the full liberty to ask me to revise the Project. If I fail to comply
with the instructions of the teacher, my project may be referred to the Committee Against Use of Unfair
Means and I will comply with the decision of the said Committee.

I
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project could not have been completed without the zealous support of many people.  I want to
convey my gratitude to Professor Saubhagya Bhadkaria, who helped me turn this endeavour into a
successful venture with her knowledge and advice. I also want to thank Gyan Mandir officials and NLIU
staff for assisting by providing the research resources for the project. I also want to extend my gratitude
to the university's staff and administration for giving me the opportunity to engage in such intensive
research project. Finally, this research project would not have been completed without the support and
assistance of my friends and family.

PRANJAL SINHA
(2021 BALLB 40)

II
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATE...............................................................................................................................................I

Acknowledgement.........................................................................................................................................II

Table of Content...........................................................................................................................................III

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1

Review of literature:.......................................................................................................................................2

Statement of problem.....................................................................................................................................2

Hypothesis......................................................................................................................................................3

Research questions.........................................................................................................................................3

Research objectives........................................................................................................................................3

Method of Study............................................................................................................................................3

Historical Analysis of the Gains of Learning.................................................................................................4

Significance of a Hindu Joint Family............................................................................................................7

Judicial Refinement and Gains of Learning...................................................................................................9

Legislative Intervention...............................................................................................................................12

Critical Analysis...........................................................................................................................................14

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................19

Bibliography................................................................................................................................................20

III
 INTRODUCTION

Families were primarily joint under the strongly patriarchal arrangement that existed previously, with
senior-most male relative believed to be the head of the household and in average, the men had greater
influence when it came to family concerns. When it came to training and support, it was either compensated
for by the joint family wealth or by the individuals in question's own assets. In the former scenario, a
portion or all of that person's wages accrued to the joint family. The doctrine of detriment was applied to
assess if the joint family was due a portion of income.

According to the theory of detriment, anything is obtained or earned at the expense of the joint family shall
be considered its accretion. This is significant since it enables for the legal recovery of all of a certain
individual’s personal earnings entirely on the grounds of financial assistance. Manu said that-

“What one (brother) may acquire by his labor without using the patrimony, that acquisition, (made solely)
by his own effort, he shall not share unless by his own will (with his brothers).”

Manu further specifies that wealth obtained by an individual via education is completely his, so the same
norm applies to presents obtained from friends or wedding gifts. However, because of the theory of the
detriment, the preceding part cannot be applied uncritically without some qualifiers. The necessity to
achieve a balance between traditional Hindu law and modern-day advancements was clearly recognized,
and this research will track the growth of the law that finally balanced the various stances and
interpretations with regard to learning benefits.

1
Review of literature:

1. Hindu Law. Author (s) Dinshaw Fardunji Mulah

This book recounts the trends in Hindu law which have resulted in important changes to the law up to the
present day. It also offers important evaluations of many major court declarations, such as instances
involving the right of a daughter to coparcenary property, the Hindu Undivided Family, adopting, and the
irreversible collapse of a marriage.

2. Manye’s Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage. Author(s) Virendra Kumar

Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage has been considered as a masterpiece on the topic since its
release in 1878. This has always ruled dominant and is widely regarded as the final word on this subject
of law. It is the most reliable source of information about Hindu law. It not only analyses the entire
subject under different chapter headings, but it also offers a thorough, comprehensive, and section-by-
section comments on the numerous Acts. Furthermore, it examines the complete scope of Hindu law in
detail under various chapter headings such as the essence and genesis of Hindu law, the sources of Hindu
law, and so forth.

3. Family Law Lectures: Family Law II. Author: Poonam Pradhan Saxena
It is a thorough treatise on the law of property and succession that aims to address all key elements
pertaining to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. It delves into key ideas such as the joint family,
coparcenary, partition, interstate succession, and the law governing gifts, wills, and inheritance.

Statement of problem

Since the establishment of the principle of joint family, so many of the actions of the family's individuals
have been impacted by the group as a whole, and as a consequence, the family as a whole has had the
rights to a profit from whatever lucrative activity a person embarked in. The idea of learning benefits
existed as a constraint on individuals' liberty and uniqueness. In 1937, a new legislation was established
that prohibited the right to obtain knowledge but the question still remains as to what is the reasoning for
the concept's existence and the cause for its abolition?

2
Hypothesis

The following hypothesis shall be evaluated in this research initiative: -

1. The evolution of the law on gains of learning has contributed to the promotion of the individual within
a joint family and increasing the autonomy of the individual.

Research questions

The following research questions shall be taken into consideration in this project: -
1. What is the rationale for the introduction of the concept of gains of learning?
2. What are the differences that exist in the law of gains of learning?
3. What is the effectiveness of the laws on gains of learning under the Indian jurisprudence?

Research objectives

The following are the objectives of this research project: -

1. To understand the origin of the concept of gains of learning.
2. To elucidate the historical conception and evolution of the laws on gains of learning.
3. To analyze the effectiveness of the law on gains of learning.
4. To enumerate the contribution made by the judiciary and the legislation towards the development of
the legal system.

Method of Study
This project uses the doctrinal method of research only.

3
 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GAINS OF LEARNING

The walk of the Hindu society mirrors a development from local area and family proprietorship to
singular possession.1 Existent patriarchy yielded spot to the joint family situation where privileges of the
coparcener in family property by birth were perceived. 2 The possibility of self-procured property was
alien to the society. Work for and solaces from the family adjusted each other in the dominatingly
farming society. The horticultural family could guarantee the help and work of its individuals in
development. However, development of present day industry and business adjusted the conditions. The
family couldn't guarantee the products of extraordinary ability and work of its individuals who didn't
utilize family property for their side interest. From this emerged the possibility of self-obtaining and the
convention of burden. This adjustment in the property relations was the response to the elements of social
necessities, and financial assistance.

The regulation of drawback necessitates that whatever is obtained at the inconvenience of the family
property ought to be viewed as its growth. The sane establishment for this principle can be discovered m
the federal retirement, monetary base and mental set-up given by the joint family property to its
individuals which was to be protection of its future interests. The standard was exercised even in the gains
of learning.
Manu expressed that what one (individual from a joint family, sibling, and so forth) secures by his own
work without utilizing (or without hindrance to) the parental property cannot be necessarily distributed to
other people, except if he so wants since that procurement was the consequence of his own individual
work.
Manu also said “Property (acquired) by learning belongs solely to him to whom (it was given), likewise
the gift of a friend, a present received on marriage or with the honey-mixture.” Reading these statements
together, the effect would be the same, stating that “A learned man is not bound to give a share of his
own (acquired) wealth against his will to an unlearned co-heir, unless it has been gained by him using
the paternal estate.”3

Even Yajnavalkya explained this as follows: “Whatever is acquired by a person himself, without

1
Roscoe Pound, “Introduction to Philosophy of Law”(Routledge 1997) 126.
2
John D. Mayne, “Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage” (Higginbotham 1883)193.
3
Wendy Doniger, “The Laws of Manu” (Penguin Classics 2000) 208.

4
detriment to or expenditure of paternal wealth, gifts from friends, gifts at marriage, these are not liable to
be divided among a man's coparceners; similarly he who recovers ancestral property lost to the family...
would not have to share it at a partition with his coparceners; nor his gains of learning.”4

Mitakshara, deciphering this provision, expresses that “the words whatever is procured without detriment
to the father’s wealth, are to be perceived as qualifying each of the four sorts of property.” This practice
was consistently followed among the old organizations. The ethics of the agrarian economy and work of
the time additionally upheld this lawful position. Notwithstanding, a few legal advisers endeavored at
formulae to adjust the interesQts of the learned coparcener and the family.5

In the use of the doctrine of detriment to the circle of gains of learning certain inquiries emerged, such as:
What was the kind of disadvantage to patrimony that would qualify the family for the procurement made
by the coparcener-acquirer? Was the family help qualifying sharing limited for direct help just or would it
cover indirect help too? As the convention of weakness arose to remunerate the family for its deprivations
and as deprival could be discovered both in immediate and backhanded inconvenience to the family
property, the differentiation among immediate and circuitous utilization of the family property was never
perceived in deciding if the property was self-procured or having a place with the joint family.

Concerning the degree of family help that makes the procurement partible property, there was no
consistent assessment among the researchers. Katyayana and Srikara followed an inflexible arrangement
though the methodology of Dayabhaga was liberal. As indicated by Katyayana, abundance is supposed to
be the gains of vidya which is procured by methods for learning got from another while remaining alive
on food outfitted by others. He respected acquisitions made by the display of information, the
arrangement of riddles, and instructing as gains of learning. Srikara likewise held the view that if a
coparcener was kept up by the family during his schooling, the learning and the ensuing procuring were
to the detriment of patrimony.

Dayabhaga contradicting Srikara's view contended that as a coparcener “since his birth depends upon his
family for food and maintenance…hardly any man can say that no paternal wealth was expended on him
and so earnings of whatever kind would have to be deemed to be partible” and inferred that, where it is
endeavored to lessen a different obtaining into regular property, it should be shown that the joint stock
was utilized for the express reasons for acquire. Dayabhaga compared food and support from the family

4
Robarts, Yajnavalkya Smriti (Allahabad Panini Office 1918), 118.
5
P.V Kane, “History of Dharmashastra” (Oriental Research Institute 1962) 579.

5
to sucking of mother's bosom. J.D. Mayne viewed this methodology as objective and seen that lone the
uncommon family cost in the schooling and preparing of a coparcener was to be repaid to the family as an
authentic assumption. The differentiation among normal and generous help by the family was bit by bit
perceived by the legal executive.6

6
Id. at 582.

6
 SIGNIFICANCE OF A HINDU JOINT FAMILY

The Hindu Joint Family is a normal condition of the Hindu society consisting of all members descended
lineally from a common male ancestor together with their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried
daughters. It includes within itself a narrower body called Coparcenery consisting of only male members
(now daughters included with Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005).

The joint family property and joint family ancestral property is collectively or individually called
‘coparcenery property’. The significant features of coparcenery property include:7
i. Joint Possession by all coparceners who have collective title and collective possession over
it.
ii. Limited powers of disposal by the coparceners.
iii. Devolution by doctrine of survivorship upon the surviving coparceners.
The Coparcenery Property includes:8
i. All ancestral property
ii. Property acquired with the aid or assistance of ancestral property (Doctrine of Accretion)
iii. Property acquired at the cost of ancestral property (Doctrine of Detriment).
iv. Property which is separate of a coparcener but which is voluntarily thrown by him into the
common stock to such an extent that it cannot be distinguished from joint family property
(Doctrine of Blending).

In contrast to the coparcenery property is the ‘Self-Acquired Property’ which a person owns exclusively
and enjoys absolute power of disposal over it. It is his ‘Separate Property.’ This property devolves by way
of law of inheritance or testamentary succession. A coparcener can hold even self-acquired property apart
from the coparcenery property owned jointly by all the coparceners. It includes property acquired by way
of gift, or inheritance from a relative other than father, father’s father or father’s father’s father (pre-
1956).
The major conflict that had arisen with respect to the Gain of Learning as seen earlier was that whether it
7
Darshan Kadu, “What are the Characteristic Features of a Hindu Coparcenary?” (Share Your Essays, 8 October 2011)
<https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/what-are-the-characteristic-features-of-a-hindu-coparcenary-7-features/
117212>last accessed on 28th March, 2022.
8
Arkadyuti Sarkar Rai, “Alienation of Coparcenary Property” (Ipleaders blog, 13th March
2020)<https://blog.ipleaders.in/alienation-of-coparcenary-property-everything-you-need-to-know/> last accessed on 28th
March 2022.

7
fell under the category of “Coparcenery Property” or “Self-Acquired Property” and whose incidental
effects would naturally follow.

8
 JUDICIAL REFINEMENT AND GAINS OF LEARNING

Apparently, the legal pattern was towards narrowing down the classification of partible gains. 9 Legal
questions emerged with respect to the accompanying focuses: What might comprise drawback to the
patrimony? Regardless of whether significant help from the family is essential for this? Regardless of
whether learning proposed particular training or simple general and rudimentary schooling?

First and foremost the court understood the hindrance of the patrimony in a wide way in order to
incorporate even slight help like upkeep and rudimentary schooling. In Laxman v. Malhar Rao,10 a huge
domain of one Bhao, worth over Rs. 30 lakhs made by him was considered by the Privy Council as joint
family property despite the fact that he had gotten close to rudimentary schooling to the detriment of the
joint family. Apparently, the Privy Council neglected to take note of that customary help, for example,
support and rudimentary instruction didn't add up to significant deprival of family property. The Laxman
case is the consequence of wrong causation. The mistake in the thinking of this Judicial Committee was
propagated by lower courts in a few cases.

In Chalakonda Alasani v. Chalakonda Ratnachalam,11 which concerned a family where young ladies were
prepared as dancers, as an existing social custom. The High Court of Madras, maintaining the allure, held
the property of a young lady, who had picked up singing and dancing at the family cost, as partible.
Taking a similar exacting perspective, it was held that gains of a pleader were partible on the grounds that
either his learning was not science or they were considered to be procured at the family cost, despite the
fact that it was liable for close to an overall training. Apparently, the legal faltering towards
individualization of gains of learning communicated in these cases was impacted by the familism based
solid severe dislike of self-acquisition peddled by certain legal scholar scholars and an absence of legal
jurisprudence in abundance.

However, the trend began to reverse gradually. In the matter of Durga Dutt Joshi v. Ganesh Dutt Joshi12
the defendant contended that the income that the plaintiff had acquired from rendering services and the
property acquired with the same must be included in the joint family property. However, the Court held
that where a son had merely obtained elementary education at the expense of the joint family funds and
9
M.P. Jain, “Outlines of Indian Legal History” 472 (1981).
10
Laxman v. Malhar Rao, (1831) 2 Knapp 60.
11
Chalakonda Alasani v. Chalakonda Ratnachalam, (1864) 2 Mad H.C. 56.
12
Durga Dutt Joshi v. Ganesh Dutt Joshi, 5 Ind. Cas. 400.

9
not acquired any special skills or training using the same, then the separately acquired property of the
individual was his own and was not to be included in the joint family property. In the matter of Lachmin
Kuar v. Debi Prasad13, the question before the Court was whether the savings and accumulations of an
individual members amounted to the property of the joint family. It was contended that the said individual
was educated by the joint family funds and as a result of that, the person's income and any property
acquired from that income must be included in the joint family property. The Court in this case clearly
laid down that"the fruits of an ordinary elementary education could not, it was held, be regarded as the
"gains of science" acquired at the expense of ancestral wealth."

Be that as it may, clear changes in the legal methodology can be found in the ensuing time frame. For this,
specific variables were capable. First and foremost, the judgment in Chalakonda case, wherein it was
stated that the convention of drawback worked uniquely in instances of significant help from the family
core. Furthermore, the obiter dicta of Justice Mitter in a Bengal case that the Hindu law in no place
endorses the conflict that acquisitions made by a learned coparcener by the guide of education got at the
family cost are partible. His view was acknowledged by the Privy Council for a situation despite the fact
that this issue was not straightforwardly being referred to. Be that as it may, this view unmistakably
conflicted with Sastric compositions as talked about above. These two variables affected the courts to
limit the class of partibles to those situations where the family property was meaningfully utilized during
the time spent learning. To comprise joint family property the securing ought to have been from specific
learning which outfitted the wellspring of prompt pay, not simple rudimentary instruction which was a
venturing stone of all sciences. In 1891 V. Bhashyam Iyengar presented the Hindu Gains of Learning Bill
in the Madras council with the expectation of tying down the acquisitions to the acquirer just, which,
nonetheless, didn't become law.

When Metharam v. Rewachand14 judgment was rendered in 1917, it turned out to be evident that
individual profit and acquisitions from learning may stay partible all through the unseparated individual's
life, on the off chance that he was initially prepared for the calling or vocation, by an uncommon
preparing at considerable cost of the patrimony, yet not something else.

The Privy Council's choice in Amar Nath Gokal Chand v. Hukum Chand Nathu Mal 15 in 1921 is a
milestone here that raised solid rushes of world-class public analysis. For this situation, the profit of an

13
Lachmin Kuar v. Debi Prasad, (1898) ILR 20 All435.
14
Metharam v. Rewachand, I.L.R. 45 Cal. 666, 671 (1918).
15
Amar Nath Gokal Chandy v. Hukum Chand Nathu Mal, LL.R. 2 Lah. 40(1921).

10
individual from the Indian Civil Service, who had been shipped off England for a specialized curriculum
and was kept up for a very long time at the family cost was held to be joint family property. The Judicial
Committee respected the generous cost of family assets in instructing a coparcener as a proceeding with
speculation for the family advantage and subsequently pay acquired by such coparcener was an
accumulation to the family property. It saw no difference amongst immediate and backhanded help by the
family, as the deprival of family property existed in both the circumstances. In Gokal Chand16 the Privy
Council had the best chance of fulfilling the cases of family capital and work by the impartial division of
the addition.

16
Id.

11
 LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION

The need for central legislation became apparent after the verdict of the Gokul Chand17 case. In 1891, V.
Bhashyam Iyengar had introduced the Hindu Gains of Learning bill in the Madras legislature, intending to
obtain protection to individual earnings and acquisitions but was not successful. While this was the
primary concern, another problem that had to be addressed was the status of women. By ensuring that a
man's earnings and acquisitions from his own skill and hard work remained separate property, women,
who were not eligible to be a coparcener, were better off given that they were eligible to inherit the
separate property of their husbands.18

M.R. Jayakar introduced the Hindu Gains of Learning Bill in the Central Legislature in the year of 1929.
The principle reasons behind the introduction of the bill were:-
i. To protect the right of a man who works and acquires a particular asset through that work, to
keep and consume that particular asset without having to divide it with the joint family.
ii. To lay down the family expenses for education cannot be considered as an investment.
The same was covered under the two clauses of section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1937 which
were as follows:-
“(a) his learning having been; in whole or in part, imparted to him by any member, living or deceased, of
his family, or with the aid of the joint funds of his family, or with the aid of the funds of any member
thereof, or
(b) himself or his family having, while he was acquiring his learning, been maintained or supported,
wholly or in part, by the joint funds of his family, or by the funds of any member thereof.”19

The legislation also made sure that the rights of the joint family was also recognized as it clearly
mentioned that the property and income of a member cannot become the property of the joint family
merely because of the two reasons mentioned above. There is scope for a claim of the whole or share of
the property of the individual member if something beyond the two factors is done by the joint family i.e.,
any investment beyond maintenance and education, then the family would have some grounds to make a
claim.
17
Supra note 18.
18
Eleanor Newbigin, ‘The codification of personal law and secular citizenship’, The Indian Economic and Social History
Review 83”, (2009).
19
The Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1937  3.

12
The legislation was considered to be an airtight one as it allowed minimal space to the judiciary to make
any interpretations which went against its spirit. After the passing of the Act, courts found the application
of Section 3 of the Act easily. In the matter of Hanso Patak v. Harmandil Patak,20 the Court held that the
income earned by a priest as a result of Vedic education which he acquired with the aid of joint family
funds belonged to the person himself and was not obligated to bring the said income into the joint family
stock. The same decision was affirmed by the decision in the matter of Ramakrishna v. Vishnumoorthi.21
As mentioned before, this did not completely abolish the right of the joint family to claim a portion of the
income if they aided it in some way beyond education and maintenance and this was proved by the
decisions in the matters of CIT v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand22and Dhanwatey v. CIT.23 All in all it can be said
that balance was restored when it came to the aspect of gains of learning.

20
Hanso Patak v. Harmandil Patak, AIR 1934 All 851.
21
Ramakrishna v. Vishnumoorthi, AIR 1957 Mad 86.
22
CIT v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand, AIR 1959 S.C. 1289.
23
Dhanwatey v. CIT, AIR 1968 S.C. 683.

13
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The H.G.L.A. provides for a very wide connotation of the term “learning”. It means “education, whether
elementary, technical, scientific, special or general, and training of every kind which is usually intended
to enable a person to pursue any trade, industry profession or avocation in life.”

The definition can't be restricted to formal learning as is done, on a practical note. Present-day business or
logical cultivating requires individual expertise, administrative capacity, hard work, and arranging. It is
normally the school of involvement that educates and prepares the untaught coparceners in their family
side interest. From the perspective of close home components and work, there is no genuine qualification
between formal and casual learning. Along these lines, to bar casual gaining from the upsides of the
H.G.L.A. would disregard the privilege to equity as its article is to ensure the individual work of the
coparceners. For the straightforward explanation that their work is applied on the family property or for
the explanation that their job in the improvement of family property can't be definitely decided, the
individual utilization of their learning procured through experience can't be disregarded.

In any case, this 'legitimate equity' circumstance is just an exterior of contention covering the genuine
disparity and unfairness. In practically every one of the cases covered by the sociological review, people
get a particular instruction work outside the family. Indeed, even those couple applying their expertise on
the family property, as a rule, orchestrate compensation for their own ability. Then again, the untaught
coparceners apply their expertise and endeavors on the family property with typically no structure for
compensating their work. Subsequently, the H.G.L.A. is working inconsistently against the untaught
coparceners for the sole explanation that their learning is applied on the family property.

An enactment cherishing the admitted strategy and the item that “the acquirers ought not to be compelled
to impart their rewards for so much hard work to idlers” ought not to allow the interests of finances to
thoroughly dispossess the cases of work for the outcome would be clearly inconsistent sharing of weights
however equivalent sharing of benefits emerging from them. This position can't be in consonance with
Article 14 of the Constitution which doesn't allow discrimination on certain grounds.

Bad form would likewise emerge when cases of family capital are completely overlooked. In

14
Venkataramayya v. Ventakataramappa24 an individual from a Hindu joint family, begun exchange with an
underlying monetary help from the joint family assets with no further help. The Madras High Court
broadened the standards of the H.G.L.A. to the case and respected the acquisitions made through the
exchange by the part as his self-procurement.

The court noticed that any proceeded with help by the family would have made it the joint family
property. For this situation, the interests of different individuals from the joint family in the family
venture are completely overlooked. Derrett appropriately censures the choice for its dismissal of the
regulation of disadvantage by and large.

What is required is a fair allotment of the profits between family capital and work. Manu himself
accommodated an exceptionally fair guideline in such a manner. He stated: “The income acquired
through agriculture and business by unlearned brothers is liable to be shared equally among them as it is
not an ancestral property”.

Kulluka, deciphering this stanza, calls attention to that the pay so acquired is after subsequent to meeting
the cases of the family property. The Maniprabha Commentary likewise proposes something very similar.
No doubt when untaught coparceners direct farming or business with family property and acquire pay or
build up the family property, what stays subsequent to deducting the cases of family capital (with
interest), can be taken by them as self-procurement. Some other importance would, it is submitted, make
the above section repetitive in the light of the stanzas talked about before.

Vasishta has set out the rule that workers utilizing family property and contributing their own ability and
undertaking are qualified for double share. Derrett, referring to Jagannatha, deciphers "twofold offer" to
imply that wherein the worker takes a proportionate offer, measured by the connection between his own
commitment or individual expertise and that of the family. In his view, Section 88 of the Trusts Act 1882
ought to be applied in such cases. He notices: “There ought to be an assessment of the family's privileges
as against the person's privileges. To the extent that nothing is asserted for individual expertise, the
extent of the family's funding to the entire ought to be the core value: when ability is affirmed and
demonstrated that ought to be a ground for a stipend to the acquirer.”25

The Hindu law gave an equation to this in the precept of a particular portion of the sibling (jyesta bhagd)
24
Venkataramayya v. Ventakataramappa, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 723.
25
Derrett, ‘The Supreme Court and Acquisition of Joint Family Property’ 349 (1977).

15
whose commitment to the family was unprecedented. Nonetheless, this training endured desuetude. At the
point when a joint family puts resources into portions of an organization and empowers its part to be an
overseer of the organization, according to the current decision of the Supreme Court, the receipt in the
character of get back to family capital would go to the family and compensation to the administrations of
the coparcener-chief would go to him. When the arrival of capital and work is clubbed together there is
discovered the requirement for division.

In instances of co-occupancy, arrangements are made for sufficient pay for unembarrassing and true blue
upgrades made by the cotenants, or for allotment of the improved offer if there should be an occurrence of
division. Similar standards can be discovered appropriate in the event of enhancements made by the
mortgagees under lock and key and a trustee. So likewise a contention dependent on Section 70 of the
Contract Act 1872 would decrease a training which would support low enhancement. Indeed, even an
expansion of J.D. Mayne's investigation for a coparcener's privilege dependent on his own venture made
on the family property would prompt a similar outcome. In such cases, the work and endeavor which have
upgraded the estimation of the family property ought to be considered as an obligation of the family
requesting commitment at the segment. A guideline arising out of the decisional law upholds perceiving
the endeavors of untaught coparceners. In this way, if a karta (administrator) provides for a coparcener
the option to utilize some joint family property for his support, the excess over the upkeep, saved or
contributed by the coparcener, is viewed as the self-procurement of the coparcener.

Another part of the activity of the H.G.L.A. is equivalent sharing of colossal costs caused by the family in
their specific training of the learned coparceners. Today, procurement of a specialized curriculum
includes unprecedented cost of family reserves (even up to a lakh) a position which didn't exist in 1930. It
is not, at this point a common and routine cost of the family however is a venture itself. Except if a
reasonable reward to such venture is given, it would cause preposterous outcomes. Such ventures
essentially pull out the family capital from the typical interaction of development. Be that as it may, the
H.G.L.A. confines its benefits solely to the learned coparcener for all time, consequently shamefully
denying other coparceners of their authentic assumptions. The family has a genuine option to get a
reasonable profit from the family capital which would be more convincing as an ethical standard.

Indeed, the first-class disappointment against Gokal Chand kind of cases emerged when the learned
coparcener was needed to return not the expense of his custom curriculum with reasonable premium yet
the exceptionally higher fortune by the utilization of his learning. On the off chance that the commitment
was to return the expense of schooling just (with interest), a particularly fair principle would not have
16
raised any dissent.

A solution for equitable recompense of individual and family contributions finds support from some
juristic and judicial views and also the actual practices. Derrett writes: “[W]hen it is thought by the
manager that the family should not be at a loss even if the coparcener is to gain (rather strange notion,
but not an inconceivable one), it is possible to envisage the odd conclusion that although the profit may
be the coparcener's own, the amount by which the family lost in enabling him to make this gain should be
debited to him at the partition.”

Such a plan is a judicially acknowledged practice. In Shridhar v. Martand, a family arrangement that uses
auxiliary and advanced education of a part would at the hour of segment be outfitted on the portion of the
part concerned, was held as legitimate by the Nagpur High Court. In spite of the fact that previous records
are not to be taken during parcel, it is reasonable for coparceners by prior consent to think about specific
costs as individual and debitable during allotment. The costs brought about for advanced education (like
clinical) were subsequently appropriately charged for this situation.
The rule set down for the situation depended on a few precedents and furthermore on the perspective on
Katyayana. Further, in real practice, such formal or casual courses of action can be found. It can't be
perceived why this standard ought not to be stretched out even to conditions wherein no such family
arrangement exists.

The H.G.L.A. clarifies the expression “gains of learning” to signify “all acquisitions of property made
generously by methods for realizing, regardless of whether such acquisitions be made previously or after
the beginning of this Act and whether such acquisitions be the customary or the uncommon aftereffect of
such learning”. Two potential understandings can be given to this definition. The first is that the words
“all acquisitions of property” incorporate each obtaining of the property without having any respect to the
family expense and in this manner is gross securing. In such a case, the learned coparceners are not under
an obligation to make a reasonable reward to the family speculation on their schooling. Thus
individualized costs are regularly shared. Adding up to the inconsistent treatment of equivalents, the
position can't be supported under Article 14.

In the subsequent translation, “all acquisitions of property made considerably by methods for learning”
would recommend that acquisitions ought to be predominantly from the learning and be something in the
wake of accommodating reasonable reward to the family speculation on the particular instruction of the
learned coparceners. As such, “gains of learning” ought to be deciphered as net and not gross increases.
17
By this translation, there will not be uncalled for improvement of the learned coparceners nor vile
hardships of the untaught coparceners. Just the subsequent translation would appear to be sacred and
right.

The other potential shades of assessment on the activity of the H.G.L.A. may now be inspected. First and
foremost, it very well might be contended that the work of untaught coparceners is offset with the
advantage of support got by them from the family. There is a trace of legitimacy in this suggestion. Yet,
when the commitment of the untaught coparceners to the family property is more than that which is only
adequate for their support, as is typically the situation, this suggestion would not work, however, becomes
an oversimplistic contention of idealism.

Furthermore, it very well might be proposed that the family property is similarly accessible for the
specific training of any coparcener and if that chance has not been benefited of, it is his powerlessness for
which no tear need be shed. It is presented that the contention is a twisting of truth, as an opportunity of
decision isn't as equivalent or as wide for all coparceners. Thirdly, it could be contended that the
privileges of coparceners to segment would take care of the issue. It presented that the parcel is certainly
not an alluring arrangement consistently. Exercise of option to segment relies upon numerous elements of
familial thought. Today due to the H.G.L.A. a clear balance in the coparcenary covers a genuine disparity
where the learned maltreatment their solidarity and benefit without any potential repercussions. The
aloofness, the agony of hardship, hesitance to spend on the education of coparceners or the bogus pride of
sacrifice in the personalities of untaught coparceners talk about the terrible condition of law.

18
 CONCLUSION

The Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 has crystallized the position with regard to the nature of
acquisition made from the learning of the individual to be his separate property and not joint family
property even if the learning was made from and to the detriment of the joint family funds.

It has further provided for safeguards to ensure that the interest of the joint family property is not
prejudiced irrationally. Thus the Act is a welcome step which has removed doubts and provided an
equitable solution. The learning by a person, apart from funds, also requires mental and physical
capability and efforts, sincerity and dedication on the part of the learner. Also the talent to utilize this
learning into earnings is dependent on a number of other factors which is not sure in all cases. The efforts
of the individual coparcener should therefore accrue to him even if the learning was financed by the joint
family funds. On the other hand, an establishment funded from the joint family funds should, on account
of investment made by them; the profits should accrue to them”.

The Act and its interpretation by the court have therefore balanced the dual interest of the joint family and
the individual which is an appreciable step”.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases
Amar Nath Gokal Chandy. Hukum Chand Nathu Mal, LL.R. 2 Lah. 40(1921).
Chalakonda Alasani v. Chalakonda Ratnachalam, (1864) 2 Mad H.C. 56.
CIT v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand, AIR 1959 S.C. 1289.
Dhanwatey v. CIT, AIR 1968 S.C. 683.
Durga Dutt Joshi v. Ganesh Dutt Joshi , 5 Ind. Cas. 400.
Hanso Patak v. Harmandil Patak, AIR 1934 All 851.
Lachmin Kuar v. Debi Prasad , (1898) ILR 20 All435.
Laxman v. Malhar Rao, (1831) 2 Knapp 60.
Metharam v. Rewachand, I.L.R. 45 Cal. 666, 671 (1918).
Ramakrishna v. Vishnumoorthi, AIR 1957 Mad 86.
Venkataramayya v. Ventakataramappa, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 723.

Legislative Material
The Constitution of India (1950).
The Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1937.

Commentaries, Digests and Books

Derrett, “The Supreme Court and Acquisition of Joint Family Property” 349 (1977).
Kane, “History of Dharmashastra” 579 (1930).
M.P. Jain, “Outlines of Indian Legal History” 472 (1981).
Manu IX, 208.
Mayne, “Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage” 193 (1883).
Misra, “Some questions regarding Joint Hindu Family” 240 (1967).
R. Pound, “Introduction to Philosophy of Law” 126 (1955).
Yajnavalkya, 118 (1988).

Journal Articles
Eleanor Newbigin, “The codification of personal law and secular citizenship, The Indian Economic and
Social History Review 83”, (2009). 16

20
Web Sources
Kadu, “What are the Characteristic Features of a Hindu Coparcenary?”.
Rai, “Alienation of Coparcenary Property”.

Miscellaneous
Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures: Family Law II, 137 (Lexis Nexis 2011).

21