Basic requirements for the existence of an HUF are as follows i) Only one co-parcener or member cannot form an HUF Family is a group of people related by blood or marriage. A single person, male or female, does not constitute a family. However the property held by a single co-parcener does not lose its character of Joint Family property solely for the reason that there is no other male or female member at a particular point of time. Once the co-parcener marries, an HUF comes into existence as he alongwith his wife constitutes a Joint Hindu Family as held in the case of Prem Kumar v. CIT , 121 ITR 347 (All.)

The Hindu Undivided Family can best be defined as a family that consists of a common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants and their wives and unmarried daughters. The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) cannot be created by acts of any party. The only exceptions are in the case of an adoption or a marriage when a stranger may become a HUF member. An undivided family, which is a normal condition of Hindu society, is ordinarily joint, not only in estate but also in food and worship.

An unmarried Hindu woman is entitled to equal share in ancestral or coparcenery property along with other male members under the amended Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court has held. Coparcenary refers to equal inheritance which was restricted only to male members of the Hindu Undivided Family but after succesive amendements several states have chosen to extend the benefit to unmarried female members too.

Since the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act’), one issue which was constantly agitated by the liberals was regarding the right of a daughter or a married daughter in coparcenary property of a Hindu Undivided Family. Some of the States which took the lead in liberalisation, passed State amendments to the Act, whereby an unmarried daughter married after the specified date was given a right in coparcenary property. Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra were some such States.

Intended or not, an influence, or a dis-proportionate bearing of supplementary factors on the process of legal adjudication could result in a deviation from the set precedents of judicial thought. One such concept discussed here is Morality, as understood in common parlance. The other is the legal premise of Estoppel.

BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Shri P.C. Ramakrishna, his wife and his two daughters. There was an oral total partition of H.U.F. on 16.9.1994 between Sri P.C. Ramakrishna, his wife and two daughters. Under this oral partition, the two daughters were allotted Rs.12,50,000/ – each and these amounts were adjusted against a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- advanced to each of them earlier as loan by H.U.F. In the said partition, all other properties of H.U.F. were allotted to Sri P.C. Ramakrishna. This oral partition took place on 16.9.1994 which was subsequently confirmed by a Deed of Declaration confirming the partition.