1971 (1) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Hindu Women s Right to Property Act 1937 - Question relates to the right of a female Hindu who although she is a member of the Hindu undivided familly is nonetheless not a coparcener. She wants to blend her property with the coparcenalry property of the joint family. Can she do so by a mere declaration made by her in that behalf

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a female member of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) can blend her separate property with the coparcenary property.
2. Whether the existence of a nucleus of joint family property is necessary for the conversion of personal property into joint family property.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Blending of Separate Property by a Female Member

The primary question in this case is whether a female Hindu, who is a member of an HUF but not a coparcener, can blend her separate property with the coparcenary property through a mere declaration. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that she could, while the revenue contended she could not.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the doctrine of blending under Hindu law does not make a distinction between a coparcener and a member, male or female. It argued that any member of a joint family could impress his or her personal property with the character of joint family property. The Tribunal referenced decisions from the Privy Council and the Supreme Court to support its view that the special process of conversion of personal property into joint family property can be employed by any member of a joint family, not just a coparcener.

However, the judgment emphasized that the rule of blending postulates that a coparcener who owns separate property may, by deliberate and intentional conduct, treat his separate property as forming part of the coparcenary property. The Supreme Court's decision in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa clarified that the owner of separate property must be a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. This doctrine is inherently linked to the status of being a coparcener.

The judgment concluded that a female member, not being a coparcener, does not have the legal capacity to blend her separate property with the joint family property. The Supreme Court's observations in Mallesappa's case were not confined to Hindu females holding property as limited owners but extended to those holding property as absolute owners as well. Therefore, the Tribunal's view that a female member could blend her separate property with the joint family property was incorrect.

Issue 2: Necessity of Nucleus of Joint Family Property

The second issue was whether the existence of a nucleus of joint family property is necessary for the conversion of personal property into joint family property. The Tribunal held that the holding of property by the joint family was not necessary for a member to impress his or her personal property with the character of joint family property.

The judgment, however, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mallesappa's case, which stated that the basis of the doctrine of blending is the existence of coparcenary and coparcenary property as well as the separate property of the coparcener. This implies that the existence of some joint family property is a prerequisite for the application of the doctrine of blending.

The judgment also reviewed various High Court decisions, including those from the Madras, Andhra Pradesh, and Bombay High Courts, which supported the view that a coparcener could impress his self-acquired property with the character of joint family property even if there was no ancestral nucleus or any other joint family property. Despite these precedents, the judgment adhered to the Supreme Court's interpretation that the existence of joint family property is essential for the doctrine of blending to apply.

Conclusion:

The judgment concluded that since the female member in question was not a coparcener, her declaration to blend her separate property with the joint family property was of no legal effect. Consequently, the income from her property was correctly assessed as her individual income and not that of the HUF. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the question was answered in favor of the revenue, affirming that the income of Rs. 21,544 was the individual income of the assessee and not the income of her HUF. The Commissioner was awarded costs, and counsel's fee was set at Rs. 300.

← Previous Next →