- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje Scindia.
Case Summary — Opinion of V.A. Mohta, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from two questions referred to the court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City. The reference related to the tax treatment of income from the Gwalior estate for assessment years 1970–71 to 1973–74 and to the validity of a partial distribution of assets effected by the administrator of the late Maharaja Sir J.M. Scindia's estate on February 1, 1968.
The Maharaja (a Hindu) died on July 16, 1961. His legal heirs included his widow Maharani Vijaya Raje, his son Shri Madhavrao Scindia, and four daughters. Estate-duty and income-tax returns were initially filed on the basis that the property of the late Maharaja was Hindu undivided family (HUF) property. The Central Board of Direct Taxes obtained an opinion from the then Attorney-General (C.K. Daphtary), accepted that opinion and finalised the estate-duty assessment on the basis that the property was HUF. Income-tax assessments for assessment years 1962–63, 1963–64 and 1964–65 were finalised on the same basis.
Subsequently, the Department reopened estate-duty proceedings relying on a Gujarat High Court decision (D.S. Meramwalla v. Ba Shri Amarba) that, in the circumstances of that case, the rule of primogeniture applied to an impartible estate. For assessment years 1965–66 and 1966–67 the Department assessed the entire income of the Gwalior estate in the hands of the legal heirs as an association of persons (AOP) and protectively assessed 2/3rds in the hands of a HUF. The Tribunal, however, held that the property was HUF: the Maharaja had only a 1/3rd share which vested in the legal heirs and 2/3rds belonged to the HUF under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Tribunal adopted the same view for later assessment years, and the reference questions arise out of that dispute.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that two-thirds of the income from the Gwalior estate for assessment years 1970–71 to 1973–74 was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family (consisting of Shri Madhavrao and his mother), the balance one-third assessable in the hands of the association of persons consisting of the legal heirs of the late Maharaja, and that no part of such income was assessable in the hands of Shri Madhavrao individually.
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partial distribution of the assets effected by the administrator of the estate of the late Maharaja on February 1, 1968, was valid in law.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sundari v. Laxmi, (1980) 1 SCC 19; AIR 1980 SC 198 | Statement of the combined effect of sections 4 and 5 of the Hindu Succession Act: section 4 gives overriding application to the Act and causes inconsistent pre-existing laws (customary or statutory) to cease to apply to matters dealt with in the Act. | The court relied on this exposition to confirm that the Hindu Succession Act has overriding effect and that customary or prior statutory rules inconsistent with it cease to apply in matters covered by the Act. |
| D.S. Meramwalla v. Ba Shri Amarba, [1968] Guj LR 609 (Guj) | Held in its facts that rule of primogeniture applied to an impartible estate in that case; relied on by the Department to re-open assessments. | The court distinguished this decision on its facts and context: Meramwalla involved an estate over which the chief had sovereign power and long custom of primogeniture, and the judgment did not consider sections 4 and 5 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore its ratio was held inapplicable to the Gwalior estate. |
| CIT v. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo, [1986] 157 ITR 358 (Patna HC) | Observation that enactment of section 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act altered the rights of members of a joint family (rights of partition, to restrain alienations except for necessity, and right of maintenance) in relation to impartible estates. | The court cited this authority to support the proposition that section 4(1) affected and in some respects eclipsed certain pre-existing rights of family members, reinforcing the impact of the Hindu Succession Act on succession and family rights. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning proceeded from the Tribunal's factual findings and statutory analysis. The key analytical steps, expressed as found in the opinion, are:
-
The Tribunal's factual findings (which the court treats as established and binding) showed that:
- The Gwalior house traces to ancestral jagirs and subsequent accumulations based on that nucleus (family property origin).
- Succession to the estate was not uniformly governed by primogeniture; there was no established custom or grant imposing primogeniture.
- The ruler did not possess unlimited sovereign powers; there were treaty constraints (e.g., maintenance rights enforced) and parts of the estate lay outside the State and were subject to normal law.
- The Maharaja had filed returns as an individual and had made some gifts, but the court held these facts were not decisive of the property's legal character.
- Applying statutory law, the court examined the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, notably sections 4(1) and 5 (including the exclusion for estates descending to a single heir by virtue of covenants or enactments). Section 4 gives overriding effect to the Act; section 5 lists exceptions (including estates guaranteed to a single heir by covenant or prior enactment).
- The court relied on Sundari v. Laxmi for the proposition that section 4 causes prior customary or statutory rules inconsistent with the Hindu Succession Act to cease to apply in matters covered by the Act. The court treated the Hindu Succession Act as a complete code on succession after 1956.
- The covenant dated April 22, 1948 (instrument of accession and related covenant provisions) was examined. Extracts (Articles XII–XV) show: private ownership/use/enjoyment of private properties was recognised, inventories were to be furnished, disputes were to be referred for decision, personal privileges and succession to the gaddi and personal rights were to be agreed, and certain immunities during period of administration were provided. The court concluded these covenant provisions did not guarantee descent of the estate to a single heir.
- Because the rule of primogeniture did not, on the facts, apply to the Gwalior estate, and because the covenant did not create an exclusion under section 5(ii) (section 5(ii) being limited to estates descending to a single heir by the terms of covenant/agreement or enactment), the general provisions of the Hindu Succession Act governed succession.
- The court further distinguished Meramwalla: that decision arose in a different factual and legal context (a territory where the ruler had sovereign power and a long-established primogeniture custom), and it did not consider the later overriding effect of sections 4 and 5 of the Hindu Succession Act; thus Meramwalla's ratio was not applicable to the present case.
- The court also referenced commentary (Shri S.V. Gupte) on the limited scope of section 5(ii) and observed that section 5(ii) excludes from the Act only a restricted class of estates which descend to a single heir by reason only of a covenant/agreement or prior enactment.
- On these bases—(a) factual findings that the estate was not impartible and primogeniture did not apply, and (b) legal effect of the Hindu Succession Act—the court concluded that succession to the Gwalior estate is governed by the Hindu Succession Act and that the property is properly treated as Hindu undivided family property for the purposes of the assessments in question.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee; Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee (being consequential).
Direct consequences and implications (as stated or necessarily flowing from the holding in the opinion):
- The Tribunal's conclusion that the Gwalior estate is Hindu undivided family property (with the late Maharaja having only a one-third share vested in the legal heirs and two-thirds belonging to the HUF under the Hindu Succession Act) is upheld.
- The partial distribution of assets effected on February 1, 1968, is held to be valid in law (answer to Q2 being consequential).
- The decision directly affects the tax assessment treatment for the specified assessment years in favour of the assessee (i.e., the income division determined by the Tribunal is sustained).
- The opinion does not purport to lay down a broader new precedent beyond applying the Hindu Succession Act to the facts: the court treats the Tribunal's findings as supported by record and statutory law (no separate order as to costs was made). If the opinion does not discuss wider precedential effect, no new broader principle beyond the application of the Act to these facts is announced in the text.
No order as to costs.
V.A Mohta, J.:— The following two questions have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that ⅔rds of the income from the Gwalior estate for the assessment years 1970–71, 1971–72, 1972–73 and 1973–74 was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family consisting of Sri Madhavrao and his mother and the balance ⅓rd of the income was assessable in the hands of the ‘association of persons’ consisting of the legal heirs of the late Maharaja, Sir J.M Scindia, and that no part of such income was assessable in the hands of Sri Madhavrao individually?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partial distribution of the assets effected by the administrator of the estate of the late Maharaja Sir J.M Scindia, on February 1, 1968, was valid in law?”
2. The ultimate question is whether the Gwalior estate left behind by His Highness Maharaja J.M Scindia of Gwalior was his individual property or Hindu undivided family property. The relevant assessment years are 1970–71 to 1973–74. The Maharaja—a Hindu—died on July 16, 1961, leaving behind as legal heirs, Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje—a widow, Shri Madhavrao Scindia, a son, and Maharani Padmavati of Tripura, Princess Usha Raje, Princess Vasundhara Raje and Princess Yashodhara Raje-four daughters. The estate duty as well as income-tax returns were filed on the basis that the property was of Hindu undivided family. The Central Board of Direct Taxes obtained an opinion from the then Attorney-General, Shri C.K Daphtary, in the estate duty assessment proceedings. He opined that the stand of the accountable person was correct, the said opinion was accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the estate duty assessment was completed on that basis. Following the same, the income-tax returns filed for the assessment years 1962–63, 1963–64 and 1964–65 were also accepted by the Income-tax Department and the assessments were finalised.
3. Later on, the Department reopened the estate duty assessment proceedings on the ground that, as per the decision rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of D.S Meramwalla v. Ba Shri Amarba, [1968] Guj LR 609, the rule of primogeniture applied to the succession as it was an impartible estate and hence the property could not be assessed in the Hindu undivided family status. In the income-tax assessments of the assessment years 1965–66 and 1966–67, the Department brought to charge the entire income of the Gwalior estate in the hands of the legal heirs of the Maharaja as an association of persons and ⅔rds of the income protectively in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal, however, held that the property was of the Hindu undivided family, the late Maharaja had only a ⅓rd share in the Gwalior estate, the said share belonged to the legal heirs and the ⅔rds share to the Hindu undivided family as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“the H.S Act”). For the subsequent assessment years 1967–68 to 1969–70 also, the Tribunal took the same view in its still more detailed order dated August 23, 1976. The Tribunal has disposed of the appeals for the relevant assessment years also on the same basis.
4. The facts found by the Tribunal are:
(a) The House of Scindias descend from the Rajput family of Sihilledars under the Bhamini Kings, one branch of which was holding Patelship of a hamlet Kannerkhera near Satara in the State of Maharashtra. The founder of the present Gwalior House was Ranoji Scindia who rose in the favour of Peshwas along with Malherrao Holkar, the founder of the House of Indore. They were authorised by the Peshwas to collect Chauth (25 per cent.) and Sardeshmugh (10 per cent. over and above 25 per cent.) in the districts of Malwa. Ranoji had three legitimate sons Jayappa, Dattaji and Jotiba and two illegitimate sons, Tukoji and Mahadji. Tukoji predeceased the father. Upon the death of Ranoji, Jayappa succeeded to the huge Scindia possessions in Malwa region. Jayappa had left behind son, Jankoji, and brother, Dattaji. Dattaji and not Jankoji succeeded to the estate. Upon the death of Dattaji, Jankoji succeeded. When Jankoji died, the only surviving lineal descendant of Ranoji was Mahadji, the illegitimate son. Illegitimacy was a normal bar to his succession, but considering the great qualities of leadership with which he was adorned, Peshwa Madhavrao confirmed him in the family Jagir. Mahadji left behind no son. In keeping with his wishes, Daulatrao, the grandson of Tukoji succeeded to the estate. Daulatrao entered into a treaty of friendship with the East India Company in which Inam lands are described as held by the family. Daulatrao died leaving behind no son. His widow adopted a son by name Mugatrao in accordance with the wishes of Daulatrao. The new name of Mugatrao was jankojirao. He also died leaving behind no son. His widow Tarabai adopted a son by name Bhagirathrao who was named as Jayajirao. For his services in the mutiny, the British Government made over to Jayajirao several properties including lands. Jayajirao was succeeded by a son, Madhavrao. When Madhavao died in 1925, the Maharaja, the only son ascended to the throne.
(b) The Gwalior estate was a family property having its origin in Jagirs given to the family and the ancestors of Madhavrao had made accumulations and accretions to the estate on the basis of the nucleus of the ancestral property.
(c) The Ruler of the Gwalior estate had no unlimited sovereign powers. In a treaty between the East India Company and the Ruler, the company enforced against the Ruler Her Highness Tarabai's right of maintenance from the estate.
(d) The Gwalior estate owned properties even outside the territory of the State which was subject to normal law.
(e) In furtherance of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Maharaja signed on August 15, 1947, an instrument of accession of his State to the Dominion of India. On April 22, 1948, the Maharaja as a Ruler signed a covenant with the other Rulers of the surrounding areas and the United States of Madhya Bharat was formed on June 15, 1948. When the Constitution of India was brought into force, the said State became a Part B State. On the passing of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, the said Madhya Bharat State ceased to be a Part B State and was incorporated with the State of Madhya Pradesh as provided in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Upon the death of the Maharaja, the President of India issued a certificate under article 366(22) of the Constitution recognising the Maharaja's only son, Shri Madhavrao, as Ruler in succession of the Maharaja with effect from July 17, 1961.
(f) The Maharaja was filing returns of income from the Gwalior estate in individual status.
(g) The Maharaja made certain gifts of property. But it was within reasonable limits.
5. Now, it will be seen from the above established factual background that the succession to the estate was not always as per the rule of primogeniture. Neither custom nor grant in the matter is established. The Ruler also did not have unlimited sovereign powers. The estate is noticed as family property having origin in Jagirs given to family. From the said property, maintenance was given to the family members. All these factors are against the impartible character of the property. No doubt the Maharaja was filing returns of income in the status of an individual and had also made gifts of some property. But these factors are not decisive of the matter. The circumstance of filing of returns in individual status by Maharaja cannot outweigh the wealth of the material indicating the real character of the property. In no case, it will affect the rights of the others. Gifts of property were within reasonable limits. Even if the limit was exceeded, that conduct may be assailed but on that basis the character of the property cannot be determined. The certificate issued by the President of India under article 366(22) is merely a recognition as Ruler of Gwalior. The said certificate is not concerned with the rights in private properties of the Ruler particularly when rights of third parties are involved. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal that the property was neither impartible nor subjected to the rule of primogeniture in the matter of succession is based on material on record and is binding on this court.
6. There is yet another important angle to this case and it relates to the effect of the Hindu Succession Act. There can be no doubt that after 1956, Hindu succession is governed by the Hindu Succession Act which is a complete code on the subject. Sections 4(1) and 5(h) of the Hindu Succession Act are reproduced here for ready reference, since they are vital to the issues.
“4. Overriding effect of Act—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,—
(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.”
“5. Act not to apply to certain properties.-This Act shall not apply to-….
(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act.”
7. Section 4 gives an overriding effect to the Act. Section 4(1)(a) speaks of old and pure Hindu law and section 4(1)(b) speaks of that part of the statutory law which is inconsistent with any provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 5 lists exceptions to the general overriding effect brought about by section 4. Section 5(ii) deals with an estate which descends to a single heir by terms of covenant or by an agreement with the Government of India. The combined effect of sections 4 and 5 has been summarised by the Supreme Court in the case of Sundari v. Laxmi, (1980) 1 SCC 19 : AIR 1980 SC 198, as follows (at page 201):
“Section 4 of the Act gives overriding application to the provisions of the Act and lays down that in respect of any of the matters dealt with in the Act all existing laws whether in the shape of enactment or otherwise which are inconsistent with the Act are repealed. Any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act ceases to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act. It is therefore clear that the provisions of Aliyasanthana law, whether customary or statutory, will cease to apply, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.”
8. In the third edition of Hindu Law by Shri S.V Gupte, Vol. 2, the learned author has made the following observations (at page 416):
“The second category of property excluded from the operation of this Act is any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act. The object is to exclude from the operation of the Act succession to the estate which goes by the rule of primogeniture but not in all cases; it is only where the estate descends to a single heir by reason only of the terms of the covenant or agreement entered into by the ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act. Under the old law of succession an estate could descend to a single heir by the rule of primogeniture by reason of the terms of a grant or custom or usage. This was one of the features of impartible estates. In view of the restricted exclusion under this clause the rule of primogeniture now stands abolished even where primogeniture was recognised by the terms of a grant or custom or usage. Section 5(ii) only excludes from the operation of the Act, estates which descend by the rule of primogeniture in a limited class of cases.”
9. There can be no manner of doubt that section 5(h) has been added in the Hindu Succession Act pursuant to article 362 of the Constitution, the object being to protect the guarantee given by the Government to the Rulers of India at the time of accession. That by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, the said article 362 has been subsequently omitted is a different matter.
10. The common ground is that the rule of primogeniture did not apply to the Gwalior estate under any law. The covenant dated April 22, 1948, does not indicate that the estate stands guaranteed to a single heir by the terms thereof, as will be seen from the following relevant extracts:
“Article XII:
(1) The Ruler of each covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of the State to the Raj Pramukh.
(2) He shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh before the first day of August, 1948, an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held by him in such private property.
(3) If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property is the private property of the Ruler or State property, it shall be referred to such person as the Government of India may nominate, in consultation with the Raj Pramukh, and the decision of that person shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.
Provided that no such dispute shall be referable after the first day of July, 1949.
Article XIII:
The Ruler of each covenanting State as also the members of his family, shall be entitled to all the personal privileges, dignities and titles enjoyed by them, whether within or outside the territories of the State immediately before the 15th day of August, 1947.
Article XIV:
(1) The succession according to law and custom to the gaddi of each covenanting State, and to the personal rights, privileges, dignities and title of the Ruler thereof, is hereby agreed.
(2) Every question of disputed succession in regard to a covenanting State shall be decided by the Council of Rulers after referring it to a Bench consisting of all the available judges of the High Court of the United State and in accordance with the opinion given by that High Court.
Article XV:
No enquiry shall be made by or under the authority of the United State, and no proceeding shall lie in any court in the United State against the Ruler of any covenanting State, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him or under his authority during the period of his administration of that State.”
11. Thus, it will be seen that succession to the estate would be governed by section 6 and other relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act under which the legal status of the property is clearly a Hindu undivided family.
12. This takes us to the consideration of the case of Meramwalla, [1968] Guj LR 609 (Guj), which has been the basis for the rethinking of the Department. The context was the dispute pertaining to the civil rights of parties in a civil court filed long before the Hindu Succession Act came into force. A perusal of the judgment will indicate that the effect of sections 4 and 5 of the Hindu Succession Act has not been considered in the said judgment, perhaps because the question did not arise. The whole context was different. That apart, there are certain striking distinguishing features which make the ratio of the said decision clearly inapplicable to the matter at hand. That was a case where a common ground was that the entire estate was in a territory over which the chief of the estate had sovereign power and the rule of primogeniture applied to the estate by a long custom up to the lapse of paramountcy. In that very decision, there are observations to the effect that the legal position would be different if the rule of primogeniture applied on an ad hoc basis. It is well-settled that impartiality is essentially a creature of custom and in the case of ordinary joint family property, the members of the family have : (1) the right of partition, (2) the right to restrain alienations by the head of the family except for necessity, (3) the right of maintenance, and (4) the right of survivorship. In law, the first of the three rights could not exist in the case of an impartible estate, but the right of survivorship was never superseded. As rightly held by the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo, [1986] 157 ITR 358, the eclipse of the rights of the members of a joint family in regard to, (1) right of partition, (2) right to restrain alienations by the head of the family except for necessity, and (3) right of maintenance, fell apart consequent upon the enactment of section 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
13. Under the circumstances, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The answer to question No. 2 is merely consequential. Hence question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
Alert