Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(10) Upon the theory of "blending", which is the next relevant aspect, I desire to add a few words to the discussion by my learned brother which includes references to the case-law. Obviously, the expression 'blending' is itself one of those unsatisfactory English expressions used in treatises on Hindu law which have been acquired a particularised connotation, to be distinguished from the literal or dictionary significance. For "blending" might be of income from separate property with income from coparcenary estate; or, equally, it might be of separate property itself with the coparcenary estate. Obviously very different considerations would apply, where a manager or other person in charge of a joint family estate chooses to treat what is indisputably separate property, which was of that character at origin, as joint property, by throwing it into the common stock or hotchpot, whichever expression might be used; as contrasted with the situation of "blending", where this has occurred prior to the acquisition itself, with regard to the respective incomes from separate properties and joint properties; and subsequent accretions are made from such a mixed fund.

(13) As pointed out in such standard treatises as Mulla, Hindu texts classed "gains of science" as joint family property, if such "knowledge of science" had been acquired at the expense of joint family funds. But this term "science" was interpreted by the courts to mean some kind of special learning, as distinguished from ordinary general education, that all members of the family might be expected to received. We have a catena of decisions, of great interest, upon different professions, and the extent to which courts recognised that the pertinent "science", was acquired under such circumstances as to warrant an inference that the subsequent earnings by the member of the coparcenary must be treated as joint family property, and not his separate property. A very early case is Chalakonda Alasami v. Chalakonda Ratnachalam, (1864-65) 2 Mad HC 56. which related to expenses incurred for learning connected with the profession of a dancing girl. Holloway and Kindersley JJ. had occasion to deal with the profession of a pleader in this respect in D. Gangadharudu v. D. Narasamma (1871-74) 7 Mad HC 47 Lakshman v. Jamnabai, (1881-82) ILR 6 Bom 225 relates to the vocation of a pleader and the office of Sub Judge.