1986 (8) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Conflict between two Division Bench decisions regarding the partition of Hindu undivided family property.
2. Whether the karta, as the sole surviving coparcener, can effect partition of the family property between himself and his wife.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of the High Court regarding the partition of Hindu undivided family property. One decision held that a wife cannot claim partition as a matter of right, while the other decision allowed partition by the coparcener. The Full Bench was constituted to resolve this conflict (S. P. GOYAL J., 14-11-1985).

2. The Full Bench analyzed the rights of the wife in the Hindu undivided family property. According to Hindu law, female members have no share in the joint family property and are entitled to maintenance only. The court held that in a family with only one male member, no partition is possible, as the sole owner cannot divide the property. The court endorsed similar views from other High Courts (S. P. GOYAL J., 13-8-1986).

3. The Full Bench reviewed the two Division Bench decisions. In one case, a partial partition was upheld as the family had multiple coparceners, entitling the wife to a share. In the other case, the court overruled the partition as the family had only one coparcener, making partition impossible. The court emphasized that the sole owner cannot effect a partition of the property (S. P. GOYAL J., 13-8-1986).

4. The Full Bench considered additional judgments cited by the parties but found them distinguishable as they involved families with more than one coparcener. Ultimately, the Full Bench overruled one decision and held that in a family with a sole surviving coparcener, partition with the wife is not possible (S. P. GOYAL J., 13-8-1986).