9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the undivided Hindu family ceased to exist on Raja Jagat Kumar's death. 2. Whether the maintenance amount received by the widow of a predeceased coparcener under an agreement ceases to be an amount received by her as a member of an undivided Hindu family. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the undivided Hindu family ceased to exist on Raja Jagat Kumar's death: The court addressed the question of whether an undivided Hindu family can continue to exist after the death of the sole surviving male member, Raja Jagat Kumar. The court noted that it is well-established that a Hindu undivided family (HUF) can exist with a single male member if there are widows of deceased coparceners or other persons entitled to maintenance from him. This principle is supported by various precedents, including Vedathanni v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Laxmi Narayan, and Bhagwati v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. & C.P. The court rejected the contention that an HUF cannot consist solely of females, citing that a family is a natural association of people, including both males and females. The court concluded that the disappearance of the last male member does not necessarily cause the disruption of the family, as the females may continue to remain undivided in mess, residence, and worship. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the undivided Hindu family did not cease to exist on Raja Jagat Kumar's death. 2. Whether the maintenance amount received by the widow of a predeceased coparcener under an agreement ceases to be an amount received by her as a member of an undivided Hindu family: The court examined whether the maintenance amount received by Panna Kuar, the widow of a predeceased coparcener, under an agreement dated May 5, 1932, ceased to be an amount received by her as a member of an undivided Hindu family. The court noted that Panna Kuar was receiving a monthly allowance of Rs. 2,000 before the agreement and that this allowance was received in her capacity as a widow of an HUF. The court emphasized that the agreement merely acknowledged the existing liability to pay the allowance at an enhanced rate of Rs. 2,250 per month and did not alter the nature of that liability. The liability to pay the allowance was referable to the fact that Panna Kuar was the widow of an HUF and was entitled to maintenance under Hindu law. The court also noted that the impartibility of the Bilari Estate did not affect the joint status of the family members. Therefore, the court concluded that the allowance received by Panna Kuar under the agreement was still in her capacity as a widow of an undivided Hindu family. The court answered the second question in the negative, affirming that the maintenance amount did not cease to be an amount received by her as a member of an undivided Hindu family. Conclusion: The court answered both questions referred to it in the negative, maintaining that the undivided Hindu family did not cease to exist upon the death of Raja Jagat Kumar and that the maintenance amount received by Panna Kuar under the agreement remained an amount received by her as a member of an undivided Hindu family. The opposite party was entitled to the costs of the reference, assessed at Rs. 150.
|
