9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was in law justified to hold that Smt. Kessarbai was entitled to I share at the moment of the death of Mohanlal ? " The facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows: The deceased Mohanlal Ladha died on February 19, 1966. The accountable person, Kanhaiyalal, was the son of the deceased. Kanhaiyalal died during the pendency of this reference and the present respondents have been substituted as his legal representatives. The accountable person filed an account of the estate of the deceased disclosing the net principal value of the estate at Rs. 86,980. The deceased, Mohanlal, formed an HUF along with his son, Kanhaiyalal, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the accountable person because the other half share of the property vested in and belonged to Kessarbai, wife of the deceased, Mohanlal. The Asst. Controller negatived the contention of the accountable person and held that the entire estate passed on the death of Mohanlal. On appeal by the accountable person the Zonal Appellate Controller held that Smt. Kessarbai did not claim her share from her husband in the partition and she waived the right to claim her share, and, therefore, the entire estate held by the deceased, Mohanlal, shall be deemed to have passed on his death. Consequently, the appeal of the accountable person was dismissed. On further appeal by the accountable person, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the accountable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accrued to her at the time of partition and was property within the meaning of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and vested in her absolutely from the date of commencement of the Act. It was further held as follows (p. 848): " The right to get 1/6th was in the entire property which after the partition came separately in the hands of the deceased and the three sons and a grandson. The wife did not sue for partition. She lived as a member of the joint Hindu family with her husband, the deceased. She was not a coparcener. The deceased was the sole coparcener in this family but still in view of the change in the law brought about by the Hindu Succession Act she had a right to share 1/6th in the property which the deceased obtained on partitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, not justified in holding that only half of the property possessed by the deceased passed on his death. 2/3rds of the property held by the deceased passed on his death. The learned counsel for the accountable person had nothing to say regarding the applicability of the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench decision to the present case. However, he contended that in the present case at the time of partition the deceased gave 1/3rd share to the accountable person and kept 2/3rds share with himself. The deceased thus kept the share of his wife with him and, therefore, on his death only his 1/2 share in the property passed and the other I which belonged to his wife did not pass. The contention cannot be upheld because before the taxing aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
