1980 (4) TMI 99 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of deceased's share in the property obtained on partition of the bigger HUF.
2. Interpretation of Hindu Succession Act and its applicability to the case.
3. Consideration of rights of widow and daughter in the property.
4. Assessment of whether the deceased was the absolute owner of the property.

Analysis:
The case involved the determination of the deceased's share in the property obtained on partition of the bigger HUF. The widow claimed that the deceased had a one-third share in the HUF properties, passing on to herself and her daughter. However, the Asst. Controller and the Appellate Controller held that the deceased was the exclusive owner, and the entire property passed on his death. The Tribunal, relying on s. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, found that the property obtained on partition was joint family property, and the deceased had only a one-third share, allowing the appeal.

The court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and relevant legal principles. It noted that the share obtained by the deceased on partition, in the absence of male issue, constituted his separate property, passing to his heirs by succession. The court emphasized that a sole surviving coparcener could alienate the property as his separate property, and the wife or daughter had no interest in it during his lifetime. The court cited precedents supporting the view that assets received on partition by a coparcener without male issue belonged to him absolutely.

Regarding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, the court clarified that s. 6 did not apply as the property was the deceased's separate property, not coparcenary property. The court distinguished the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, stating that it did not confer rights to the wife during the husband's lifetime. The court concluded that the deceased was the absolute owner of the properties at his death, rejecting the Tribunal's finding of a one-third share.

In the final decision, the court answered the referred question in the negative, in favor of the department. The Controller was awarded costs. The judgment clarified the deceased's ownership rights, the applicability of succession laws, and the distinct rights of the widow and daughter in the property, providing a comprehensive legal analysis of the case.