9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.V.Satya- B.V.Rajeswari B.V. Srilak- Narayanan gopal narayanan shmi In the above major HUF there was a partial partition on 12-6-1985. In the said partition a claim was put forward for Rs. 1 lakh towards the provision for marriage expenses of unmarried daughters viz., Kum B. V. Rajeswari and Kum. B. V. Srilakshmi. 3. The Assistant Controller as well as the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim thus put forward and the said point became final as the said point was not carried in further appeal. The family of Sri B. V. Nandagopal, the deceased in this appeal has his wife in Smt. B. N. Geetha. They had a son by name B. N. Mahesh and a daughter by name Kum. B. N. Anusha. A claim for Rs. 50,000 towards the provisions for maintenance and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter of the deceased Shri Nandagopal was made by the accountable person whole submitting the estate duty account of the deceased. The claim was based upon the decision of the madras High Court in CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma [1984] 148 ITR 434. In the said decision it is held by the Madras High Court that a girl born in a Hindu family is entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total value of Rs. 2,58,929 before funeral expenses are deducted. One of the reasons assigned for rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 50,000 towards provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter of the deceased was that she was entitled to 1/3rd share out of the properties falling to the share of her late father under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and hence no further provision is called for. 4. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Controller the decision of the A-Bench of this Tribunal passed in Pusarla Narasaraju v. ACED [1985] 11 ITD 683 was cited. The Assistant Controller relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Smt. A. Suhasini's case. However, the Assistant Controller who was under a mistaken impression held that there was a partial partition in the bigger HUF some time prior to the death of the deceased and during the course of the said partial partition provision of Rs. 50,000 was made for the marriage of unmarried daughters and there was a credit balance of Rs. 83,000 in the accounts of the unmarried daughters in the books of M/s B. V. Kamalapathy Chetty Sons on the date of the death of the deceased. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Representative also placed reliance upon another decision delivered by A-Bench in 1986, KVVSS Krishnamurthy, A/P late K. Lakshmidevamma, Nandyal v. ACED [ED Appeal No. 31 (Hyd.) of 1986]. To this order also one of us, viz., Judicial Member, is a party. The only point debated before the said Bench was whether in computing the principal value of the estate the accountable person can claim deduction of a provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried daughters of the deceased. It is the claim of the accountable person in that case that the said provision should have been deducted from the value of the joint family estate. The said Bench held that as per the law found adumbrated at para 304 of Mulla's Hindu Law the.daughters' marriage expenses should come out first from her own father's share. In the case before the said bench the husband of the deceased and the father of the minor girl predeceased and the deceased had stepped into his shoes and inherited his share in the family property. Hence, we held that even according to the authority cited on behalf of the accountable person the provision should first come from her own share. It cannot come from the joint family e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on the basis of the wording of the specific sub-section as follows : "That means, if a dependent has obtained any share in the estate of a deceased Hindu either by testamentary or intestate succession, he or she will not be entitled to maintenance from those who taken the estate. The principle behind this sub-section is obvious. Once a dependent gets a share in the deceased Hindu's estate, his or her right to get maintenance comes to an end and she cannot have not only a share but also maintenance besides." Even in the penultimate para of the judgment, the clear legal position which emerges from out of sub-s. (2) of s. 22 of the Act is found out to be that the wife has a right to be maintained by the husband during her lifetime. But that right has no choate connection with the property of the husband. Consequently, no deduction can be made on that claim of the wife to be maintained. After his death under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act she gets a share and, following the principle of sub-s. (2) of s. 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, she cannot claim maintenance. No doubt, the earlier A-Bench of the Tribunal in Pusarla Narasaraju's case considered Smt. P. Leela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate s. Srinivasulu Reddy, A/P S. Sumanamma [Case Referred No. 107 of 1976, dated 21-12-1979]. The learned Members while distinguishing Estate of Late S. Srinivasulu Reddy, A/P S. Sumanamma's case held: "It is significant to note that according to the facts arising in the case of Estate of Late S. Srinivasulu Reddy, A/P S. Sumanamma, the property left by the deceased was the sale-acquired property in which the unmarried daughter was having a share. Hence, the question of considering the right of maintenance in the joint family property of the deceased was not before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in that case. Hence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had no occasion to consider the right of maintainer property left by her father. Therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case." 8. In Bitla Venkateswarlu's case we recorded that Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Smt. A. Suhasini's case was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Pusarla Narasaraju's case. the decision in Pusarla Narasaraju's case was very much influenced by the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. B. Kamalamma's case. The correctness of the said Madras High Court decision was do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
