9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arunachalam senior (the father) was, on the evidence and the authorities, satisfactorily proved to be the joint property of a Hindu undivided family and, therefore, exempt from payment of duty under section 73 of the Estate Duty Ordinance, 1938. Counsel and solicitors for the appellant and the respondents were the same as in the preceding appeal. July 10. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT SIMONDS. Their Lordships have in their opinion in the preceding appeal, No. 16 of 1955, stated the facts which are relevant to this appeal also and made some references to the relevant law. They do not repeat them here. The question which arises in this appeal is whether an assessment made by the Commissioner of Estate Duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance and other rights which belong to female members of a Hindu undivided family. The question, then, is a narrow one of construction, whether (a) the father was at his death a member of a Hindu undivided family, and (b) the property of which he was the sole coparcener was the property of that Hindu undivided family. Upon (a) no doubt arises: it is conceded that he was a member of a Hindu undivided family. It must be observed that it was the same undivided family of which the son when alive was a member and of which the continuity was preserved after the father's death by the adoptions that have been mentioned. For his death did not put an end to the family line. Gratiaen J., in his judgment in the Supreme Court, quotes the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a right to maintenance out of it and in some circumstances to a charge for maintenance upon it. And these are incidents which arise, notwithstanding his so-called ownership, just because the property has been and has not ceased to be joint family property. Once again their Lordships quote from the judgment of Gratiaen J.***: To my mind it would make a mockery of the undivided family system if this temporary reduction of the coparcenary unit to a single individual were to convert what was previously joint property belonging to an unindivided family into the separate property of the surviving coparcener. To this it may be added that it would not appear reasonable to impart to the legislature the intention to discriminate, so long as the fam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty of the undivided family. Judging by that test their Lordships have no doubt that the Supreme Court came to the right conclusion. Had their Lordships taken a different view from that of the Supreme Court it might have been necessary to review some at least of the large number of cases cited at the Bar, from which chosen passages appeared to favour the contentions of the appellant. But, as was said in the case of the previous appeal, the matters upon which the parties and their expert witnesses were agreed were of far greater significance than those upon which they differed, and their Lordships doubt whether, even if the appellant's evidence stood alone, they could have come to any different conclusion as to the meaning and scope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
