T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y February 13, 1960

Law and the Predicament of the Hindu Joint Family J Duncan M Derrett

I

H A M M E R - B L O W S have f a l l en upon the H i n d u j o i n t f a m i l y ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y the types w h i c h feel them most, the Mitakshara f a m i l y , w h i c h is known throughout Ind ia , but rare in the Punjab (where cus­tom prevai ls) and in Bengal and Assam (where the Dayabhaga law preva i l s ) , and the Al iyasantana and Marumakka t t ayam j o i n t famil ies pe­cu l ia r to Kera la State. Income Tax bore on i t heavi ly , then Estate D u t y s t r ipped it of a slice every t ime an adul t member died, and now W e a l t h Tax is, we are t o l d in Bombay, law­f u l l y ex ig ib le f r o m its overburden­ed funds. To be a member of a j o i n t f a m i l y can be a nuisance i f one is a candidate for a legislature, and can prevent the easy a c q u i s i t i o n of an office of p rof i t under a l i m i t e d company if a coparcener of the same f a m i l y is already a director . The H i n d u Succession Ac t , 1956, bad no t ime for the Al iyasantana and Marumakka t t ayam j o i n t f a m i ­lies and provided that as each member dies, his f ic t ional per capita share' shall pass, as if it were his separate and self-acquired proper ty , to the new heirs set out by the A c t . And prac t iea l lv the same fate over­took the Mitakshara f a m i l y , since in almost every f a m i l y the deceased coparcener now has the r i gh t to dispose of his und iv ided interest by W i l l , and i f he does not i t w i l l pass by intestate succession in defined shares to the motely crew of heirs and heiresses which the Ac t has i n ­vented. Fundamental Mi takshara theory has been cast to the winds, and what are we to make of what is le f t?

Wha t am I compla in ing about, someone may ask? Even before 1953 when the Estate D u t y Act was bound to prevent decedents f rom merg ing a l l their p roper ty in the j o i n t f a m i l y estate immedia te ly be­fore they died, and recourse had to be had to that useful f ic t ion of severance immedia te ly p r i o r to death, w h i c h served as a precedent fo r the arrangements of 1956, the Mi taksha ra coparcenary interest had so changed its character as to be h a r d l y recognisable, and the Kera l a j o i n t famil ies had been so bad ly knocked about by local statutes that

they were ha rd ly m a t r i l i n e a l to any useful purpos. W h a t was on its way out had best be got r i d of en­t i r e l y , and w h y , we are asked, d i d not Par l iament make short work of i t when it was about the task of re­f o r m i n the H i n d u "Code"? A t any rate it is a waste of t ime to cry over sp i l t m i l k , or to regret the death agonies of an ant ique, or iental , backward ins t i tu t ion , w h i c h has pa­ra l le l s f r o m darkest A f r i c a , and the remotest and most backward por­tions of South-Eastern Europe, and f r o m no par t of the r e a l l y 'advanc­ed ' countries o f the w o r l d . In the b ig cities one hears no th ing of the j o i n t f a m i l y , or only of its inconve­niences. Freedom is in the a i r , and any th ing w h i c h hampers free dis­posi t ion of p roper ty is looked upon as an ted i luv ian .

A n d , after a l l , what was left of Mitakshara doctr ine? The theory was that the descendants in the male l ine of a common ancestor were presumed to be " j o i n t " , w i t h a com­mon possession and common r i g h t of enjoyment of ancestral p roper ty and a l l its accretions f r o m various sources. One was either in the fa­m i l y or not. If one was a male then one was an 'owner ' , a copai -cener, subject to the very var ied and fluctuating r ights of the non-copar­cener members of the f a m i l y . One was p roud to be almost their trustee, or even their Manager, in whom i m p l i c i t trust was placed by a l l . No one coparcenar, w h i l e he remained ' j o i n t " , could predicate of h imsel f

that he owned a par t i cu la r share, much less pa r t i cu la r objects, and his presumptive share, his ' interest ' , as i t i s usually cal led, f luc tuated w i t h b i r ths and deaths. Self-acquisitions, as acquisit ions w i thou t detr iment to the p a t r i m o n y were cal led, were of no relevance except at a p a r t i t i o n , and when a man d ied his widow was mainta ined as before out of the fa­m i l y p roper ty and his sons, and sons' sons, etc, cont inued to repre­sent his l ine for the purposes of a pa r t i t i on wh ich migh t not happen for generations.

Now what is the pos i t ion? Fami ­lies j o i n t fo r two generations to­gether are becoming rare, especially in the cities. Self-acquisitions pass at death as if the acquirer were se­

parate; d u r i n g his l i f e t ime his earn­ings are never j o i n t f a m i l y proper ty unless he either made them di rec t ly by the employment o f j o i n t f a m i l y funds or he afterwards merged them in the common stock; any th ing given to h i m by the Manager fo r the us e of his wife and ch i ld ren and himself , and subsequently invested and increased, w i l l s t i l l be his self-acquired proper ty whatever the other coparceners th ink of the M a ­nager's wisdom in so p r o v i d i n g . Insurance-policies pa id fo r by the j o i n t f ami ly almost i n v a r i a b l y ma-lure to the benefit of the i n d i v i d u a l coparcener. A n d to make matters worse, however l i t t l e the j o i n t fami­ly p roper ty may be it may be at­tached and sold on behalf of a judgement credi tor of the coparce­ner (a pos i t ion impossible in Kerala families because of the no rma l lack of pa r t i t ion there except by v i r tue of statutes), and the coparcener in South Ind ia may secretly go and sell or mortgage his und iv ided i n ­terest to a stranger, who can then create a thorough nuisance of h i m ­self finding out what it is he has purchased, and real is ing i t in a costly and often embarrassing par-t i t i o n suit. F i c t ion after f ict ion has fa l l en upon the head of the M i t a ­kshara f a m i l y , and what is left has a very sorry look about i t . W h y mourn its apparent ly impend ing passing?

An observer can, however, ob­tain a different impression of these facts, and it is possible that the present scene, awkward as it un­doubtedly is, can be differently in ­terpreted. Our present Manager— whether g r a p p l i n g w i t h suits f i led on behalf of recalcitrant nephews' alienees, and w i t h the demands of the Estate D u t y Control ler and the claims of his brother's w idow or his father's dependents, or cursing the last coparcener to d i e for his fa i lu re to leave a suitable W i l l con­veying his proper ty subject to H i n d u law, and thereby leaving h im, the Manager, wi th at least two legal capacities d once, each conflicting w i t h the other—may be a p i t i ab le f igure : but this is not to say that big day is done, or that he is not go ing to f u l f i l a most impor tan t , if not essential funct ion for many a long year.

305

February 13, 1960 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y February 13, 1960

W h y have a l l these developments taken place? Not , surely, because people were t i r ed of the j o i n t f a m i ­ly , but because they d i d not in tend that i t should stand in the way of reforms or pub l i c requirements. The j o i n t f a m i l y is not so much an archaic surv iva l as a p r iv i l ege , and for pr ivi leges one must be prepared, on occasion, to pay.

Let us look at each bi te that has been taken out of the o r i g i n a l Mitakshara doctr ine and sec whether it has real ly d imin i shed the funda­mental basis, the basis upon wh ich the vast ma jo r i t y of Hindus s t i l l re ly . To take the last anomaly f irst , the a l iena t ion by an und iv ided coparcener was fac i l i ta ted in South I n d i a because of a usage that had g rown up there, whereby a copar­cener, member of a wealthy f a m i l y , migh t bor row money on the security of the j o i n t estate (whether the Manager approved or not, and usual ly when he d i d not app rove ) , wi thout hav ing to separate and un­dergo the inconvenience, and possi­b l y the loss and sentimental dis turb­ance which separation often involves, and wi thout being ent i t led to hide behind his j o i n t tenure and c l a im that he 'owned ' no th ing as an i n d i v i ­dual . Thus it was a device to keep the j o i n t f a m i l y together. Because a pa r t i t i on was avai lab le to the M i t a ­kshara coparcener at his op t ion his alienee was a l lowed an equi ty over the entire estate to step in to his al ienor 's shoes: and thus i nd i r ec t l y the j o i n t 'owner ' , who could never say exactly how much or what he owned, was enabled fo ut i l i se his interest. In Kera la the posi t ion has always been otherwise, and because, apart f rom statutory provis ions , par t i t ions were always very difficult to b r i n g about no question of alie­nat ion of an und iv ided ' interest ' could arise, and, for the same reason pr ivate creditors could not attach the debtor's interest, and on his i n ­solvency no th ing of the tarwad pro­per ty passed to the Official Receiver.

In the same sp i r i t we may take the Estate D u t y provisions and the interest ing decision regarding W e a l t h Tax . The p u b l i c believe in the j o i n t f a m i l y , but they do riot accept that the j u r i s t i c theories w h i c h are so extremely useful in other contexts s h o u l d serve as a shield behind w h i c h ind iv idua l s may refuse to pe r fo rm their ob l i ­gations. S i m i l a r l y the in t rus ion of the widow upon the coparcenary as

a quasi-coparcener by the operat ion of the H i n d u Women's Rights to Proper ty Ac t , 1937 (now supersed­ed) was a device to enable a widow to l ive separately and as her own mistress if she so wished, w h i l e at the same t ime preserving, so far as was possible consistently w i t h such an a i m , the essential features of the male issue's ' b i r t h - r i g h t ' , and the other coparceners' r igh t of survi ­vorsh ip .

It may we l l be asked whether the same at t i tude can be taken towards the provisions of the H i n d u "Code" . There the coparcenery interest is rudely wrested f r o m the j o i n t f a m i l y and dis t r ibuted amongst many heirs . I f they do not authorise the Mana­ger in the p roper f o r m , and give h i m the proper indemnit ies , u n t o l d inconvenience w i l l f o l l ow when he carries on as before, especially in the case of those who l ive in the j o i n t f a m i l y anyhow. Af te r two deaths of coparceners, say, the b u l k of the p roper ty w i l l be he ld upon perhaps three dist inct tenures; and u n t i l a pa r t i t i on no one w i l l know which p o r t i o n or object belongs to whom and under what tenure. Sur­v ivor sh ip has been abrogated for good except in cases where the de­ceased left no w idow, mother, son, daughter, predeceased son's daugh­ter, daughter 's son. and the rest. Ye t we must note that the son who was j o i n t w i l h his deceased father at his death is s t i l l so much preferred that he can exclude a separated son, and when a son has inherited, his o w n son's ' b i r t h - r i g h t ' in such pro­per ty has not been taken away. These appear at first sight to be a mistake and an oversight respectively; but perhaps w'e do Par l iament an injus­tice. Something of the j o i n t f a m i l y system w h i c h is very near its heart has been preserved, and this can hard ly be a coincidence.

An objector may say that the re­cogni t ion of the j o i n t f a m i l y , and the evident desire to keep i t . w i t h i n the new bounds, wh ich is found throughout the "Code" and in other statutes, is meaningless when so l i t t l e j o i n t f a m i l y p roper ty remains, and so l i t t l e of the o r ig ina l theory is left appl icable . But could Par­l iament have done otherwise than i t has done? Just as in Estate Duty the coparcenary interest had to be assessed, otherwise everybody w o u l d die a pauper, having merged his proper ty w i t h the j o i n t estate at the last moment, so in the Succession

307

fAc t the reforms fo r the benefit of the f o r m e r l y neglected relations w o u l d have been useless if the pro­positus could have evaded their pro­visions so s i m p l y . A n d in an age when large incomes are in fact sepa­rate and self-acquired proper ty i t would make l i t t l e sense to introduce reforms appl icable to o n l y one type of estate and one pa r t of a dece­dent's p roper ly , w h i l e many fa­voured relations should be lef t to their o l d remedies against a d w i n d l ­i n g and insecure fund . We know very wel l that there was propaganda at one t ime to abolish the M i t a k ­shara f a m i l y ent i re ly , and i t is ob­vious that if this has not been done it is f o r some good reason.

O u r objector may continue that even assuming that Mi takshara law i s in ta r t in respect o f any par t icu lar f a m i l y f o r a l i m i t e d t ime, there is an enemy of the coparcenary h id ­den in i ts very heart, w h i c h so v i t i ­ates i t that the abo l i t ion w o u l d have caused very l i t t l e loss. Let us assume that no coparcener has died, that none has been adjudicated i n ­solvent, that none has made aliena-tions of his und iv ided interest, that the interest of none has been attach-ed for a debt, and that in respect of separate acquisit ions the members behave, as members usually do, w i t h a m u t u a l affection and con­sideration and an absence of jea­lousy wh ich makes the H i n d u Gains of L e a r n i n g A c t of 1930 sound irreverent and unnecessary. S t i l l the father can, by cont rac t ing a debt fo r any purpose other than a s t r i c t ly f a m i l y purpose cause his sons' and grandsons' interests to be attached and sold : and there is no th ing they can do to prevent i t , fo r they are under a 'pious obliga­tion* and the on ly way out is to prove that the father incur red the debt in the course of i m m o r a l i t y or i l legal i ty .

The spectacle of sons l ead ing evi­dence even d u r i n g his l i f e t ime , to show that the i r father led a l i f e of vice, is to some more d i sgus t ing than amusing : though this special deve­lopment of A n g l o - H i n d u law ought to be viewed w i t h an appropriate sense of h u m o u r . It is true, one must answer, that when the debt is contracted the protection w h i c h Mi takshara offers to the sons' i n ­terests is v i r t u a l l y gone. But this is on ly because the j o i n t f ami ly is not an insurance-organ; it is not a p r iv i l ege enabling H i n d u sons to sit back and laugh at thei r father 's ere-

February 13, 1960 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y February 13, 1960

di tors , and is consistent w i t h the highest degree of responsibi l i ty on the father's par t . Certainy the i n ­s t i tu t ion of the 'p ious ob l iga t ion ' and connected rules have been abused, but that has been due to the intr icacies in t roduced d u r i n g the B r i t i s h pe r iod .

In short, wh i l e the Mitakshara j o i n t f ami ly exists, and in the res­pects in w h i c h i t exists, i t i s as vigorous as i t was o r ig ina l l y intend­ed to be, and is s t i l l capable of per­f o r m i n g its t r ad i t iona l service. M u c h has been bi t ten f r o m the cake, bu t what is left has the o ld flavour.

II At this po in t another objector

may interpose. We city-dwellers l i v i n g up to the edge of our means on a government salary have no t i m e fo r the aunts and cousins and i d io t nephews who clutter up the ancestral j o i n t f ami ly home. The r i f f - r a f f and remote relations, and questionable dependants of remote relations, who eat the i r heads off at our expense and w i l l not , o r cannot, take a h i n t to depar t ! Westerners are not fixed w i t h these burdens, and w h y should we have to pu t up w i t h them? I t i s a l l very wel l fo r the oldfashioned heads of mofussil famil ies who are p r o u d that two dozen people sit down to eat in their house every day, and at least a ha l f of these are people who are not enti t led to be fed there. Such heads of famil ies are ve ry ofter pet ty tyrants who make the i r sons hand in accounts in t r ip l i ca te before they w i l l give them money to buy pet ro l , ' b i r t h - r i g h t ' o r no ' b i r t h r i gh t , ' The o l d order i s passing and f la t -dwel lers who have forgot ten the names of the i r grandfathers brothers ' sons' ch i ld ren are more characteristic of the New I n d i a than the archaic patr iarchs mentioned above.

To a l l this there is a short ans wer . Y o u have a misconception o what is meant by a j o i n t family Economy and sentiment may d raw ; very m i x e d group of i n d i v i d u a l together under one roof, or unde one theoretical roof . Bu t the M i t a kshara j o i n t f a m i l y , and even th Kera la tarwad, is something a gres deal narrower , 'and more l i m i t e d i i ts purpose and funct ion . I t is use less r a i l i n g at the Mi takshara j o i n f a m i l y when you t r y to make ; p e r f o r m functions fo r w h i c h i t wa not designed and at the same t i m compla in that i t i s not in fact pel f o r m i n g them. To see what h i

rea l ly happened we must take a short peep in to legal h is tory . I t has already been noticed that H i n d u law has taken a curious t u r n in the H i n d u "Code" ; that i t has reverted to customary ideas, w h i c h the dharmasfuxstra ( the classical system of jur i sprudence) t r i ed f o r centu­ries almost in v a i n to r e f o r m . For a l l the technical faul ts of the "Code" (and we should not min imise the i r number or effect) i t has expressed something of the m u d d l e d obstina­cy of the H i n d u peoples who have been faced w i t h several different systems of law at once fo r long periods. In the j o i n t f a m i l y too, i t would seem, realism is evident, and what has not been pared away re­mains the ha rd core — and it is ha rd ly a waste of t ime to d raw attention to its character.

I l l

There were o r i g i n a l l y two m a i n types o f j o i n t f ami ly , w i t h cer ta in sub-types, of w h i c h only the ma t r i -l inea l j o i n t f a m i l y o f Kerala i s wor th ment ion here. Those two types had only one feature in com­mon, but i t formed the cement by wh ich the two types could be brought , and kept, together. The f irst type was that of the non-Aryans, Drav id ians and others. I t must be remembered that a l though these peoples are la rge ly represented in South I n d i a they were once very wel l represented in the N o r t h as wel l , and indeed they are fa r f r o m ext inct there to this day. T h e i r j o i n t f a m i l y was the elemental or na tura l f a m i l y of the father and mother and the i r ch i ld ren . Normal ­ly the ch i ldren left the home on marr iage, a l though in the case of an only daughter she normal ly brought her husband to be a 'son-in-law in the house' and so gave her parents a sort of adopted son. The p i n t p roper ty of the home was made up of the ancestral p roper ty of the father, and the stridhanam, or para­phernal ia , of the mother. The mother took the lead in po r t ion ing off her daughters, and the father shared out the ancestral proper ty amongst the sons on the i r marriages. They could stay at home i f they wanted to, bu t wherever there was l and or o p p o r t u n i t y they generally le f t . W h i l e the spouses l ived and d i d not divorce, the i r p roper ty was treated as a j o i n t estate under the husband's management. Bo th spou­ses increased the j o i n t stock by the i r efforts. K insh ip was not en­t i r e ly pa t r i l i nea l , f o r connexions

309

th rough the mother , and relations by marriage were very h igh ly thought o f : a settled agr icu l tura l type of society, g i v i n g the fullest scope to the natural desires of a young couple to have a home of their own.

The second, and newer type, the direct ancestor of the Dayabhaga jo in t f ami ly of Bengal and Assam, was that of ihe A r y a n f a m i l y . Here p a t r i l i n y and pat r ia rchy were the rule. F a m i l y l i fe was b u i l t upon a history of migra t ion , insecurity, and mistrust of neighbours. W o ­men were a burden, and had to be carr ied along. Men were the mem­bers of the f a m i l y who counted, and to increase the male popula t ion in the ' compound ' was the great amouion or the head of the f a m i l y . Daughters were given away or sold, and disobedient sons w o u l d be got r i d o f in s im i l a r ways, and were l ucky to be so considerately treated. Separation, unless at the patr iarch 's w i l l was treason, and very unpro­fitable, since he alone could dis t r i ­bute the assets, and advance sons whom he was w i l l i n g to par t w i t h . Women had no p rope r ty except trinkets, and; whatever they had was at the disposal of the head of the f a m i l y , A f a m i l y r ap id ly developed into a c l a n . w i t h the adoption of poly­gamy, and a mul t i tude of retainers filled out the natural members of the f a m i l y in to a useful l i t t l e a rmy. Jo in t brothers and cousins and nephews were far better partners in any m i l i t a r y , commerc ia l , or sacer­dota l enterprise than any stranger profit-sharers. A n d those who were t e m p o r a r i l y unemployed were na­t u r a l l y looked after u n t i l they could be useful again. The male mem­bers were encouraged to look after the female members because i f they d i d not the latter 's dissatisfaction could wreck even the best organised household, a fact upon wh ich M a n u comments shrewdly (as ever ) .

These two types of f a m i l y mixed and interpenetrated each other, as castes f o l l o w i n g either f o r m , o i modifications of either, came to live cheek by j o w l . The gradual forma­t i on of a m i x e d A r y a n and non-A r y a n cul ture under the aegis of Sanskrit sources of ethics and law required compromises, some open and some tacit , and also very clever j u r i s t i c adjustments of the ancient smnti- texts , wh ich were a l l Aryan , and o n l y occasionally t inged w i l l non-Aryan features absorbed by

February 13, 1960 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

310

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y February 13, 1960

ear ly A r y a n immigran t s into Nor th ­ern Ind i a . The famous Mitakshara of Vijnaneshvara was so successful a book just because it made these compromises and brought a very mixed crowd under the shadow of one umbre l l a . The author seized upon the one feature which the two types of f a m i l y have in common, and this, it is submitted, is the essence of the j o i n t f ami ly , and a l l other elements are accidental and non-essential.

The D r a v i d i a n famil ies have always been intensely p r o u d of hereditary weal th . Ancestral land has far more than a sentimental value. Prestige stems f r o m the l and , or sources of weal th , that descended f r o m father and mother, f rom father's father or father's mother., and so on . To lose an­cestral land by having to sell it is a disgrace which famil ies can hard ly bear. However poor the soi l , however neglected or unproduct ive the source of wealth, the descendants of the acquirers w i l l never part w i t h i t i t it can possibly be avoided. Hence the various forms of mortgages which provide the owner w i t h a bare t i t le and ha rd ly any prof i t s : sentiment and prestige is accommo­dated w i t h pover ty . Mar r i age con­tracts t u rn around the question of what land the couple w i l l have, and the dowry plays an essential part . I f Southerners could lose their sense of prestige in respect of an­cestral p roper ty they could dis­pense w i th the d o w r y and the l ike , which they profess to hate. This att i tude of m i n d coincides w i t h an att i tude on the part of sons towards the lands, etc. taken by their father f r o m his own ancestors, and any other lands he may have acquired h imsel f (here .a ru le of the Mi tak­shara has been abolished in Anglo-H i n d u law, but survives in actual usage). The father's proper ty is not his alone, but serves to keep alof t the prestige of a l l his descen­dants: hence he is subject to f a m i l y approva l in disposing of i t . This the Mitakshara expressed in its tor­tuous but very interesting defini­t ion of daya. the proper ty of 'an­other' wh ich becomes one's own by mere relat ionship.

The A r y a n famil ies consisted of male coparceners who were very much concerned in the qua l i ty of management of the j o i n t estate, and who owned it when the head died or re t i red. The i r r ights in respect of i t could often be anticipated, and

no actual head of such a f a m i l y could totally ignore the debt which he owned to his sons, etc, as co-managers and co-developers of the estate. His m o r a l obligat ions to them were intense, and his desires na tu ra l ly moved in the same direc­t ion , Vijuanesvara saw an oppor­tun i ty to equate the two ideas, and defined the p roper ty of the father and the interests of the sons in terms equal ly appl icable to both types of f a m i l y .

I V Thus the essence of the j o i n t

f ami ly ha s a lways been the mutua l duties of father and son, the latter inher i t ing the obl igat ions which the former acquired by v i r tue of his own sonship. A n d because sons owe so much to their fathers they may, or they may find they can equally l o y a l l y not share indefinite­ly the task of discharging the o b l i ­gations he has left them. He, for his part , has no j o y l ike that of seeing his son's face, and, as the son is the father h imsel f born again, the father's property is na tu ra l ly in a very special sense the son's proper ty too. Whether the son w i l l ever hinder the father's exercise of his responsibil i t ies depends upon cir­cumstances, and he has many oppor­tunities to seek disinterested advice.

Cer ta in it is that whereas in Ben­gal the son is never a l lowed to question the father's act, that part of Ind i a is as alive to a father's duties, and to the r i g h t f u l demands of those fo rmer ly dependant upon a deceased father as any other pa r i of Ind ia , and to suggest that Ben­galis are more ind iv idua l i s t i c and selfish than other Hindus w o u l d be absurd. The spi r i t is there, though the j u r i d i c a l fo rmula is different and apparently makes l i t t l e p rov i ­sion for its f a i t h fu l execution in practice. Whatever the pecul iar i ­ties of the Dayahhaga school may be, the fundamental p r i n c i p l e exists throughout Ind ia , except in the mat r i l inea l famil ies , that son and father own proper ty as trustees for many others besides themselves, and that the kernel of their efficiency in serving others lies in their relation­ship w i th each other.

As long as the father's proper ly is treated as being his, only sub­ject to his duties towards his des­cendants, and pa r t i cu l a r ly his sons, who w i l l shoulder his responsibi­l i t ies after his death, the essence of the j o i n t f a m i l y is a l ive . A n d

311

observers find very l i t t l e difference here between town-dwellers and others, government servants and agr icul tur is t s : the methods of earn­i n g differ and the demands made upon one by the mode of l i fe d i f fer ; but the na tura l f ami ly , w i th the relationship between father and son as its p ivot , continues—and a l l else, being per iphera l , may stay or go, is immater ia l . T h o u g h the law leaves them less and less in com­mon, and though their duties must be performed under sharper con­dit ions and perhaps more r igorous ly and more inconveniently (unless sensible compromises and settle­ments are widely employed) , the basis is s t i l l there, and Hindus w i l l s t i l l be recognisably Hindus whi le i t remains. Univers i ty of London.

January 1960.

Punjab National Bank THE w o r k i n g of the Punjab Na­

t ional Bank L t d for the year ended 31st December, 1959 has been satisfactory. Deposits rose to over Rs 110 crores f r o m Rs 129 crores a year ago. Subject to audit , the profit of the Bank for the year 1959—after making payment of Rs 11-99 lakhs to Employees Gra­tu i ty Fund Trust and p rov id ing for contingencies -amounts to Rs 88.63 lakhs. This includes Rs 1,18 lakhs brought fo rward .

Rs 12.50 lakhs has already been ut i l ized towards payment of ad-in te r im Div idend at Re 1 per share subject to tax. thus leaving a ba­lance of Rs 76.13 lakhs for further appropr ia t ion .

The , Directors have decided to make the f o l l o w i n g appropr ia t ions : provis ion for Income-tax Rs 17.50 lakhs; transfer to Reserve Fund— Rs 17.00 lakhs: transfer to Ronus to Staff a/c Rs 25.00 lakhs; and transfer to Charitv Account - R s 1.00 lakhs.

The Directors have fur ther re­commended to the shareholders that out of the balance of Rs 15.63 lakhs. Rs 12.50 lakhs be paid as Firm I Div idend at Re 1 per share subject to tax making a total dis t r ibut ion of 20 per cent per annum subject to tax. The balance of Rs 3.13 lakhs is to be carr ied forward

After appropria t ions Gratuiy . Bonus, Taxat ion and Char i ty , net p rof i t for the year 1959 stands at Rs 40.65 lakhs against Rs 41.96 lakhs in the previous year.

February 13, 1960 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

312