Report No. 86
7.9. Calcutta case as to "family".-
The matter came up for detailed consideration in a Calcutta case.1 Asutosh Mookerjee, J., summed up his own view in these terms:
"The word 'family' as used in the Partition Act, ought to be given a liberal and comprehensive meaning and it includes a group of persons related in blood, who live in one house or under one head or management."
The principle underlying the section and the authorities, both English and Indian, appear to be to maintain the integrity of a body of people knit together by the tie of common residence. The advent of a stranger is bound to lead to disruption.2
In an Allahabad case,3 Sir John Stanley, C.J., delivering the judgment of the High Court, observed:
"(a) The words 'undivided family' as used in this section appears to be borrowed from section 44, T.P. Act.
(b) The words 'undivided family' must be taken to mean 'undivided qua the dwelling house in question, and to be a family which owns the house but has not divided it'."
1. Kishrode Chandra v. Saroda Prasad, 12 CLJ 525.
2. Salim Ullah v. Faqir Ullah, AIR 1948 All 142 (143).
3. Sultan Begum v. Debi Prasad, 1908 ILR 30 All 324 (327, 328) (FB).