9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the old customary rules of "primogeniture" and "impartible estates." 2. Applicability of section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the old customary rules of "primogeniture" and "impartible estates": The primary question addressed was whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, altered the rules of Hindu law concerning "primogeniture" and "impartible property." The court noted that the Act was promulgated to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus, replacing the old law with new provisions. Section 4 of the Act provides an overriding effect, stating that any text, rule, or custom in force before the Act's commencement ceases to have effect concerning matters provided in the Act. Section 5(ii) carves out an exception for estates descending to a single heir by terms of agreements or enactments before the Act. The court concluded that the customary rule of "primogeniture" was abrogated by the Act, and succession must be governed by its provisions. The property, previously "impartible," became capable of partition. The court rejected the contention that the position would remain unaltered until the holder's death, emphasizing that the law in force before the Act's commencement ceased to have effect immediately upon the Act's promulgation. 2. Applicability of section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act introduce a fiction, deeming the holder of an impartible estate to be the individual owner of all properties comprised in the estate. However, this fiction applies only when the assessee holds an impartible estate as defined by section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court noted that there was no agreement, covenant, or enactment within the meaning of section 5 applicable to the assessee, thus these provisions did not apply. The court referred to various decisions, including those from the Punjab, Gujarat, Patna, and Rajasthan High Courts, which supported the view that the Hindu Succession Act abrogated the rule of custom concerning succession. The court also considered and disagreed with the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts, which had held that the impartible estate's character continued post-Act. Conclusion: The court held that: (i) The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amended and codified the law, replacing old rules with new provisions, and customs or usages cannot be relied upon for matters covered by the Act. (ii) Section 4 of the Act abrogates all texts, rules, customs, and laws inconsistent with its provisions, except for impartible estates covered by section 5. The old rule of primogeniture is abrogated. (iii) Sections 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act apply only to impartible estates under section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act. The questions raised were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
|
