We have seen already that the meaning of the term HUF and the way in which HUF comes into existence. In the light of all this, the question whether any limit is placed on number of members of a HUF has been beautifully explained by the Apex Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda vs CIT, (1976) 3 SCC 142, at page 148
Outside the limits of coparcenary, there is a fringe of persons, males and females, who constitute an undivided or joint family. There is no limit to the number of persons who can compose it nor to their remoteness from the common ancestor and to their relationship with one another. A joint Hindu family consists of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. The daughter, on marriage, ceases to be a member of her father’s family and becomes a member of her husband’s family. The joint Hindu family is thus a larger body consisting of a group of persons who are united by the tie of sapindaship arising by birth, marriage or adoption:
“The fundamental principle of the Hindu joint family is the sapindaship. Without that it is impossible to form a joint Hindu family. With it as long as a family is living together, it is almost impossible not to form a joint Hindu family. It is the family relation, the sapinda relation, which distinguishes the joint family, and is of its very essence.”
Thus it can be concluded that there is no limit on the number of members of a HUF.