1997 (4) TMI 72 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the estate left by Manjunatha Gowda was obtained by survivorship applying section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women s Rights Act 1933 ? Held that - The object of section 8(1)(d) is to give a right to claim a share in the joint family property to all females referred to in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Merely because partition by one of the coparceners under clauses (a) to (c) is a condition for a class of family members entitled to a share in the property it does not apply to a case where a class of family members are entitled under section 8(1)(d) since it stands on altogether a different footing and therefore partition is not a condition precedent for claiming a share by a class of family members enumerated in section 8(1)(a) of the Act. But that principle has no bearing on the facts in this case for the reason that the property held was not received by survivorship. Under these circumstances the family members enumerated under section 8(1)(d) are not entitled to a share in the estate left by the deceased. Thus we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the High Court warranting interference.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 in the context of estate duty imposition on property inherited by widow and daughter after the death of a coparcener.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment involves an appeal regarding the exclusion of the widow's and daughter's share in the property from estate duty under section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933. The deceased, a coparcener in a joint family, received a 4/5ths share in the property through partition and passed away. The widow and daughter claimed exclusion of their shares based on the Act. The Estate Duty Officer initially excluded the widow's share, but on appeal, it was reversed, leading to the current appeal.

The primary issue revolves around whether the estate left by the deceased coparcener was obtained by survivorship as per section 8(1)(d) of the Act. The Act provides for the entitlement of specific classes of females, including mothers, unmarried daughters, and widows, to a share in joint family property passing to a single coparcener by survivorship. The judgment delves into the distinction between joint family and coparcenary, emphasizing that survivorship applies when property passes to a single coparcener, not through partition.

The court analyzes the definitions of "survive," "survivor," and "survivorship" to ascertain the legal implications of obtaining property by survivorship. It clarifies that in this case, the deceased did not receive the property through survivorship but as a coparcener of the joint family, as there were no other coparceners involved in the partition. The judgment refutes the argument that partition is a condition precedent for claiming a share under section 8(1)(d) and asserts that the property was not received through survivorship, thereby denying the widow and daughter a share under the Act.

The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the family members enumerated under section 8(1)(d) are not entitled to a share in the deceased's estate. The judgment concludes that there is no illegality in the High Court's ruling, and no costs are awarded in the case.