Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1985 (3) TMI AT This
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the adopted son is entitled to a share in the joint family property retroactively from the date of the adoptive father's death. 2. Whether the widow of the deceased had a half share in the estate of the deceased. 3. Applicability of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. Whether the doctrine of relation back of adoption applies in this case. 5. The effect of the Supreme Court's decisions in Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra and Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum on the rights of the adopted son and the widow. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of the Adopted Son to a Share in Joint Family Property: The primary issue was whether the adopted son, adopted after the death of the adoptive father, was entitled to a share in the joint family property retroactively. The Tribunal held that under Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate vested in him or her before the adoption. The adopted son's rights in the family properties would take effect only from the date of adoption. Hence, he does not get any right in the property which had vested with the adoptive mother before the adoption. 2. Widow's Half Share in the Estate: The Tribunal considered the argument that the widow of the deceased had a half share in the estate of the deceased. It was contended that the decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum's case supported this claim. However, the Tribunal noted that the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener with absolute rights to dispose of the entire property. During his lifetime, his wife had only a right of maintenance and was not entitled to a partition. The decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum's case did not apply because it involved a different factual scenario where a partition was claimed after the death of the coparcener. 3. Applicability of Section 12 and Section 14: Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were pivotal. Section 12 states that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate vested in him or her before the adoption. Section 14(1) states that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner. The Tribunal concluded that the widow became the absolute owner of the property upon her husband's death, and the adopted son could not divest her of this property. 4. Doctrine of Relation Back of Adoption: The Tribunal referenced multiple judicial decisions to conclude that the doctrine of relation back of adoption to the date of the death of the adoptive father no longer holds good. The Supreme Court in Punithavalli Ammal's case and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. T. Yasodamma's case had held that the adoption does not divest the widow of the property vested in her. 5. Effect of Supreme Court Decisions: The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra, noting that in that case, the adoption took place before the death of the adoptive father, making the adopted son a coparcener. This was not the situation in the present case. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum's case did not apply as it involved a claim for partition, which was not present in the instant case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the adopted son does not get any right in the property which had vested with the adoptive mother before the adoption. The widow of the deceased did not have a half share in the estate of the deceased, and the entire property passed on the death of the deceased under Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The appeal by the revenue was allowed, reversing the order of the Appellate Controller and restoring that of the Assistant Controller.
|