9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. The deceased started his life with a small property which was bequeathed to him under a will by his maternal uncle. The deceased subsequently acquired all the properties and money-lending business by his personal exertions. On the 15th July, 1951, a deed styled as a partition deed was executed between the deceased and his three sons, dividing the agricultural holdings of the deceased into four portions, allotting one to himself and one share each to his three sons. Subsequently, a separate account was opened in the books of the money-lending business for each of the three sons and the income derived from the agricultural lands was being credited to their respective accounts. The money-lending business was also divided between the deceased and his three sons on October 4, 1957, and a document was drawn up for the said purpose. On November 10, 1957, the deceased executed a will whereby he bequeathed the property possessed by him to his three sons. A contention was raised before the Assistant Controller that the properties acquired by the deceased by his self exertions were impressed with the character of the joint family properties and the same were partitioned between himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a gift, it was not shown that the deceased retained any possession or enjoyment or derived any benefit from the properties so gifted and that section 10 of the Act was not attracted. Sri T. Ananta Babu, the learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, contends that there was no positive declaration of intention by the deceased to convert his self-acquired property into joint family property and that even from the recitals of the partition deed, no such declaration could be gathered, but on the other hand the recitals go to show that the deceased treated the property only as his separate property, that his subsequent conduct disclosed that the deceased retained complete control over the entire property though the income was being credited to the sons which was being utilised by him, that the recitals in the will also disclose that the deceased treated the property as his separate property and that there was sufficient material for the estate duty authorities coming to the finding that the shares given to the sons under the partition deed could only be by way of a gift. Sri Ananta Babu further contends that the act of conversion of separate property into joint family proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and would have mentioned it as his self-acquired property only. The recital in Telugu, extracted below, brings Out the intention of the testator more clearly The testator in this sentence was merely describing the character of the property at its inception and the subsequent treatment of the same by him as the family property. The further recital that the partition was effected with the consent of all the members is also indicative that at some time anterior to the execution of the deed of partition dated July 15, 1951, the father (the deceased) had expressed an unequivocal intention to treat his self-acquired property as the joint family property of himself and his sons. It is now well established that under Hindu law, a person might impress self-acquired property or separate property with joint family character. This may be achieved by throwing it into the hotchpot or blending it with the joint family property or by a mere declaration of an unequivocal intention to convert the separate or self-acquired property into joint family property and for such conversion no formalities whatsoever are required (vide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Stremann and Sadasiva Vittal v. Rattalu ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange deed has been furnished to us. In this deed, there is a clear recital to the following effect : "These lands were obtained by S. Veera Raghaviah at the time of partition with his brothers on July 15, 1951, and which is in his exclusive possession and enjoyment." From this document it could be inferred that subsequent to the partition deed dated July 15, 1951, each son was in separate possession and enjoyment of his share of the properties. It cannot, therefore, be said that the father retained complete control over the properties in spite of the partition. Sri Ramachandra Reddy further sought to rely upon a sale deed dated November 19, 1956, executed by the second son, S. Veera Raghaviah, in favour of one V. Ramchandrudu, wherein he sold certain wet land which he got under the partition deed dated July 15, 1951. But this document does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Assistant Controller or the Central Board at the time of making the assessment or hearing of the appeal. A referrence is made to the document only in the reference application filed on January 29, 1963, subsequent to the disposal of the appeal by the Board. Hence the said document cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family property. The decision rendered on the basis of the definitions contained in the Gift-tax Act cannot be made applicable to a case arising under the Estate Duty Act, where there are no definitions of the expressions "gift" or "transfer of property". The question whether the act of conversion of separate property into joint family property amounts to a transfer, has to be determined only on the principles of Hindu law and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In Sadasiva Vittal v. Rattalul a Bench of this court held that no formialities are required for conversion of separate property into joint family property. The Madras High Court took the view in M. K. Stremann v. Commissioner of Income-tax that impressing a separate property with the character of a joint family property, does not involve a transfer. This decision was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Stremann. Though this question was not decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court there is no disapproval of the aforesaid proposition and their Lordships on the other hand proceeded on the footing that an unequivocal declaration was sufficient to constitute the separate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
