1985 (3) TMI 61 - SC - Income Tax

Whether a female who inherits a share in a joint family property by reason of the death of a male member of the family ceases to be member of the family? Held that - This case has to be treated as an authority for the position that when a female member who inherits an interest in the joint family property under section 6 of the Act files a suit for partition expressing her willingness to go out of the family she would be entitled to get both the interest she has inherited and the share which would have been notionally allotted to her as stated in Explanation I to section 6 of the Act. In the instant case the theory that there was family settlement is not pressed before us. There was no action taken by either of the two females concerned in the case to become divided from the remaining members of the family. It should therefore be held that notwithstanding the death of Sham Rao the remaining members of the family continued to hold the family properties together though the individual interest of the female members thereof in the family properties had become fixed. Narayan Rao Sulochanabai and Gangabai alias Taibai were together entitled to retain only one unit of ceiling area. In the result the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was affirmed by the Tribunal is restored. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) to the joint Hindu family after the death of a male member.
2. Determination of the ceiling area for the family under the Ceiling Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act) regarding the devolution of interest in coparcenary property.
4. Validity of the family settlement claim.
5. Whether female members who inherit a share in joint family property cease to be members of the family.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Ceiling Act to the Joint Hindu Family:
The family in question, governed by the Mitakshara School of law, owned extensive agricultural lands. After the death of Sham Rao Bhagwant Rao, his interest in the coparcenary property devolved on his son, wife, and mother in equal shares under Section 6 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the family continued to be joint in estate and constituted a family within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act, thus could not hold agricultural land in excess of one unit of the ceiling area. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the family remained joint despite the death of Sham Rao.

2. Determination of the Ceiling Area:
The Ceiling Act, which came into force on January 26, 1962, imposed a maximum limit on the holding of agricultural land. The Sub-Divisional Officer determined that the family held 313.57 acres of land, which was converted to 304.57 acres for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. The family was entitled to retain only 96 acres out of the total land, and the remaining 222.32 acres were declared surplus. The Supreme Court restored this order, rejecting the High Court's decision that each member of the family was entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area.

3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Act:
The High Court's interpretation of Section 6 of the Act was that the one-third interest in the family property devolved in equal shares on the heirs of Sham Rao, resulting in each heir being entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the notional partition under Section 6 of the Act for quantifying the interest inherited by the heirs did not imply that the family was disrupted or divided. The female heirs did not cease to be members of the family without their volition to separate.

4. Validity of the Family Settlement Claim:
The claim of a family settlement entered into on March 30, 1957, was not pressed before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Sub-Divisional Officer had previously held that the alleged family settlement was not true. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not consider this claim in its judgment.

5. Female Members and Family Membership:
The Supreme Court addressed the contention that female members who inherit a share in joint family property cease to be members of the family. It referred to the decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, stating that the right of a female heir to the interest inherited gets fixed on the death of a male member, but she does not cease to be a member of the family without her volition. The Court emphasized that the ownership of a definite share in the family property does not preclude a person from being a member of the family.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, restoring the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Court held that Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai, and Gangabai alias Taibai were together entitled to retain only one unit of ceiling area, rejecting the High Court's erroneous construction of the proviso to Section 6 of the Ceiling Act. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →