Fami

lyl
aw-I
ICases(
1to8)
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
COMMR.OFINCOMETAXvGOMEDALLI
LAXMI
NARAYAN(1935)
I
ssue-whet
herpr
oper
tyi
nthehandsofsol
esur
viv
ingcopar
cenershoul
dbet
axedashi
s
i
ndi
vi
dual
proper
tyort
hatofHUF?

Deci
sion-Thecour
tobs
erv
ed:
TheSupr
emeCour
t,i
nit
srec
entdeci
si
onsai
dthatt
heex
pressi
on
'
HinduUndiv
idedFami l
y'i
ntheWealthTaxActusedi nthesenseinwhichaHinduj
ointf
amilyi
s
under
stoodi
nt hepers
onallawofHindusandaj oi
ntfamil
ymayc ons
istofas
ingl
emaleme mberand
hi
swifeanddaughter
sandt her
eisnothi
ngintheschemeoftheWeal t
hTaxActtosuggestthata
HUFasassessabl eunitmustconsi
stofatleastt
womal emember s.

Thus,thejoi
ntstat
usoft hefami
lydoesnotcomet oanendmer el
ybecausef
ort heti
mebeing
therei
sonlyonemalememberoft hef
ami l
y.Iti
scleart
herefor
ethat"t
her
eisashar pdi
sti
nct
ion
betweenwhati sunderstoodintheHindul aw bytheexpressi
ons"undi
vi
dedHindufamil
y"and
"copar
cenary
"(c
onsist
ingofmalemember s)
.

Thec ourt
,however
,obser
v edt
hatunderHi
ndulaw,
thesol
esur
vi
vi
ngcopar
cenerhaswiderpowers
todealwi t
ht heproper
ty,but
,subjec
ttoright
soffemalemember
se.g.maint
enanc
e,mar r
iage
expenses,adopti
onbywi dow,et
c.

MOROVI
SHWANATHvGANESHVI
THAL(
1873)
I
ssue-whet
heraper
sonr
emov
edmor
ethanf
ourdegr
eesf
rom t
heor
igi
nal
acqui
reroft
he
pr
oper
tycandemandpar
ti
ti
onoft
heJFP?

Deci
sion-Apar
ti
ti
onc
anbedemandedbyonemor
ethanf
ourdegr
eesr
emov
edf
rom t
he
acquir
erororiginalowneroft hepropertysoughtt
obedivi
dedbutthatitc
annotbedemanded
byonemor ethanf ourdegreesremovedf r
om thel
as ,howev
towner erremote,hemaybefr
om
theori
ginalowne rthereof
.Be c
ause,coparcenar
yext
endstofourdegreefrom thel
astowner
(ext
inct
ionofcopar cenar
y).
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
MD.HUSAI
NKHANvBABUKI
SHVANANDANSAHAI
(1937)
Issue-whethert
hepropert
yinheri
tedbyahinduf
rom hi
smat
ernalgr
andfatheri
shis
separatepr
opertyorJFPandwhet heraft
erhi
sdeat
h,hi
swif
e,theonlyl
i
v i
ngheir,
wil
l
haveabsoluteownershi
pont hatproper
ty?
Deci
sion-Thecour
tobser
vedt
hatPr
oper
tyi
nher
it
edf
rom t
hemat
ernalgr
andf
ather
cannotbes aidt obeancestral.The'ancestr
alestat
e'inwhi chundert
heHi ndulaw,a
sonacqui resj oint
lywit
hhi sf atherani nter
estbybi rt
h,mus tbec onfi
nedtothe
propertydes cendedt ot
hef atherfr
om hismal eancestori
nt hemalel
ine.hence,any
i
nher i
tancebyt hedaughter'
ssonwoul dbeobstruct
edheritage.'
Thus,
est at
einher
it
ed
from mat ernalgr andf
atheri s" separat
e property'and one has f ullpowerof
dispositi
onov eritsoadev i
ce( Wil
l)madebyper sonov erhisseparatepropert
yis
full
yoper ative.

Inthepr esentcase, theestatewhichwasi nherit

edbyGaneshPr asadf r
om hi smat ernal
grandfathercannoti nthei
rlordshi
ps'opinionbehel dtobeancestralpropertyinwhi chhisson
hadani nterestjoi
ntlywit
hhim. GaneshPr asadc onsequent
lyhadful
lpowerofdi sposaloverthat
estat
e, andt hedevisemadebyhi minfavourofhi sdaughter-
i
n-l
aw,GiriBala,couldnotbe
chall
engedbyhi ssonoranyot herpersonOnt hedeathofherhusband, t
hedev iseinherf avour
camei ntooper ati
onandshebecamet heabsol uteownerofthepropert
y ;
andt hesaleoft hat
propertyinex ecuti
onpr oceedingsagainstherhusbandcoul dnotadv erselyaffecthert i
tl
e.

ARUNACHALAM VMURUGANTHA(
1953)
I
ssue-whetherafat
hergi
veshisself
-acqui
redpropert
ybygiti
f nt
erv
ivosorbywil
lto
oneofhissons,t
hesonwill
takeitasancestr
alpropert
yandson'
ssonwillhav
eint
erest
i
nitornot?
Deci
sion-TheCour
thel
dthat
-

(1)Whenaper sonrecei
vesgif
t,herecei
vesitnotbecausehei ssonorhasanyl
egalri
ght
,
butbecausehisfat
herchoosetobestowaf avouronhim whichhecouldhav
ebest
owedon
anyot herper
sonaswel l
.Whenhemakesagi f
tofseparateproper
ty,hehasanabsol
ute
discr
etion.

(2)Furt
her,t
heMi t
aksharahasplacedthef
ather
'sgi
ftunderasepar
atecat
egor
y,andhas
decl
aredthem exemptfr
om thepart
iti
on.

(3)Mitakshar
afatheri
snotonlycompet
entt
osel
lhi
ssel
f-
acquir
edproper
tyt
oastr
anger
withouttheconcurr
enceofhi
ssonsbuthecanmakeagi
ftofsuchpr
opertyt
ooneofhi
sown
sonst othedetr
imentofanot
her.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
(4)Theintenti
onistobegatheredfr
om t
hetermsofthedeed.Incasethefatherhasnot
expressedhisint
enti
onc l
ear
ly
,thent
hei
ntent
ioni
stobegat
heredfr
om thelanguageofthedeed
andt hesurr
oundingcir
cumstances.

TheCour thel
dt hat
,inthepr e
s entc
ase,theWi
llexpresslyvestssonwi thabsoluteri
ghts(of
al
ienati
on),andnor eferencei smadet oson'
sson.Thushe( father
)didnotintendthat'he
proper
tyshoul dbet akenbysonasancest r
alpr operty.Theoryofequalowner shi
pi snot
appli
cabl
et othefat
her'
sgi f
ts,asfat
herhasapr
edomi nanti
nter
estinhisse
lfacqui
redpropert
y.

SMT.DI
POVWASSANSI
NGH(
1983)
I
ssue-whet
heranancest
ral
proper
tyaf
tert
hedeat
hofasol
esur
viv
ingcopar
cenercanbe
dev
olvedbysuccessi
ononhi
sonl
yhei
r(deceasedsist
er)wher
eacust
om gi
vi
ngpr
efer
encet
o
col
l
ateral
andstopsafemal
etoownanancestral
propert
y?

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
thel
dthatt
hepr
oper
tyhel
dbyas
olesur
viv
ingcopar
cenermay
consti
tutehisseparateproper
tyandonhi sdeat
hitwil
ldev
olv
ebys ucc essi
ononhisheirs,andany
custom givi
ngpr ef
erencetocol
lat
eralwouldbevoi
d.Thecourtobservedthatthecharacterofthe
propert
yv ari
es,dependinguponwhot heclai
mantisIntheabsenceofanymal ei
ssue,X' sson
helditduri
nghi sli
feti
measas ol
es ur
viv
ingcoparc
eneranditschar
ac te
rwi t
hrespe
ctt obothhis
si
s t
erandthec oll
ater
als(
sonsof'Y'
)wast hatofaseparat
eproperty
,whi chwill
gobyi nherit
ance
tothenear est"hei
r(hissi
ster
).

Commr
.ofWeal
thTax
,KanpurvChanderSen(
1986)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hei
ncomeorassetwhi
chasoni
nher
it
sfr
om hi
sfat
herwhensepar
atedby
par
ti
ti
onthesameshoul
dbeassessedasi
ncomeoft
heHi
nduundi
vi
dedf
ami
l
yofsonorhi
s
i
ndi
vidual
income.

Deci
sion-i
thasbe
enhe
ldt
hatt
her
ecoul
dbenopr
esumpt
i
ont
hati
fthepr
oper
typur
chasedbya
fat
herfel
ltohi
ssonbyi
nher
it
ancei
twasdeemedt
obei
nhi
sposi
ti
onasaKar
taofaHi
ndu
Undiv
idedFami
ly.

theHi ghCourtrel
iedwasadeci sioninthecaseofCITv.Ram Rakshpal
,AshokKumar[ (
1968)
67I TR 164( All
)]
.Int hesaiddeci si
ontheAl l
ahabadHighCour thel
dt hatinv i
ew ofthe
provisionsoftheHinduSuccessionAct,1956,t
heincomefrom asset
sinheri
tedbyasonf r
om
hisfatherfr
om whom hehadsepar at
edbyparti
ti
oncoul
dnotbeassessedast heincomeofthe
Hinduundi vi
dedfamilyoft
heson.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
M/S.NOPANYINVESTMENTS(
P)LTD.vSANTOKH
SI
NGH( HUF)(
2007)
I
ssue-whet
heray
oungercopar
cenercoul
dfi
l
ethesui
tforev
ict
ion,
int
hecapaci
tyoft
heKar
ta
ofaHUF,
when,
admi
tt
edl
y,anel
dermemberoft
heaf
oresai
dHUFwasal
i
ve.

Deci
sion-t
hecour
tobser
vedt
hatay
oungermemberoft
hej
ointHi
nduf
ami
l
ycandealwi
tht
he
j
oi
ntf
ami
l
ypr
oper
tyasmanageri
nthef
oll
owi
ngci
rcumst
ances-

(
i)i
ftheseni
ormemberort
heKar
tai
snotav
ail
abl
e;

(
ii
)wher
etheKar
tar
eli
nqui
sheshi
sri
ghtex
pressl
yorbynecessar
yimpl
i
cat
ion;

(i
i
i)i
nt heabsenceofthemanageri
nexcept
ionalandextr
aordinar
yci
rcumst
ancessuchas
di
str
essorcal
amityaf
fect
ingt
hewhol
efami
lyandforsuppor
ti
ngthefami
l
y ;

(i
v)i
ntheabsenceoft
hef
ather:
(a)whosewhereabout
swerenotk
nownor(b)whowasawayi
na
remotepl
aceduetocompell
i
ngcircumstancesandhisr
etur
nwit
hinar
eas
onablet
imewasunl
ik
ely
ornotant
ici
pated.

i
thasbeenobser
vedthator
dinar
il
y,theri
ghttoactast
heKartaofHUFisvest
edi
ntheseni
or-
mostmalememberbutinhi
sabsence,t
hejuni
ormemberscanal
soactasKar
ta.

Mr
s.Suj
ataShar
mav
.Shr
iManuGupt
a(2016)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hepl
aint
if
f,bei
ngt
hef
ir
stbor
namongstt
heco-
par
cener
soft
heHUFpr
oper
ty,
woul
dbyv
irt
ueofherbi
rt
h,beent
it
ledt
obei
tsKar
ta.

Deci
sion-t
hecour
tobser
vedt
hatt
hei
mpedi
mentwhi
chpr
event
edaf
emal
ememberofaHUF
from becomingi t
sKar t
awast hatshedidnotpossesst henecessaryqualificationof
coparcenership.Section6oft heHi nduSuccessionActisasoci al
l
ybenef icial l
egislati
on;it
givesequal r
ightsofinher i
tancetoHi ndumalesandf emales.It
sobj ect
iveist or ecognisethe
ri
ghtsoff emaleHi ndusasco- parcenersandt oenhancetheirri
ghttoequal ityapr opos
succession.Therefore,Cour t
swoul dbeext r
emelyvigil
antaproposanyendeav ourt ocurtai
lor
fett
erthestatutoryguar anteeofenhancementoft heirri
ghts.Nowt hatthisdi squalifi
cati
onhas
beenr emovedbyt he2005Amendment ,
ther
ei snoreasonwhyHi nduwomenshoul dbedeni ed
thepositi
onofaKar ta.Ifamal ememberofanHUF, byv i
rt
ueofhisbei ngt hef i
rstbor neldest,
canbeaKar ta,socanaf emalemember .
TheCour tfindsnorest
ri
cti
onint helawpreventi
ngtheeldestfemaleco-
par
cenerofanHUF,
fr
om beingi tsKart
a.Theplai
nti
ff‟sfat
her
‟sr i
ghtintheHUFdidnotdissi
pat
ebutwasi nher
it
ed
byher.Nordi dhermarri
agealtertheri
ghttoinheri
ttheco-par
cenarytowhi
chshesucceeded
aft
erherf ather‟
sdemiseinter
msofSect ion6.Thesai dprovi
siononl
yemphasisest
he
st
atut
oryr ightsoffemal
es.