- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda (Smt) v. Controller Of Estate Duty, Karnataka .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Smt. Manjunatha Gowda, is the widow of the late Manjunatha Gowda. The deceased had earlier been a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) headed by his father, Mallegowda. A partition dated 4 May 1965 allotted 4/5th of the joint family property to the deceased. Upon his death on 18 August 1971, estate-duty proceedings were initiated. The widow claimed that her own share and that of her unmarried daughter were not part of the taxable estate, invoking Section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Although the Estate Duty Officer accepted this contention, the decision was reversed on departmental appeal. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reversal, and the Karnataka High Court, on reference, agreed with the Tribunal. The present appeal reached the Supreme Court on a certificate granted under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the estate left by the deceased passed to him “by survivorship” so as to attract Section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, thereby giving his widow and unmarried daughter a share that must be excluded from estate duty.
- Consequently, whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that neither the widow nor the unmarried daughter had any interest in the property while the deceased was alive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The property the deceased obtained at the 1965 partition should be treated as property that later “passed by survivorship”; hence Section 8(1)(d) entitled the widow and unmarried daughter to shares that must be excluded from the taxable estate.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Nagendra Prasad v. Kempananjamma, AIR 1968 SC 209, to submit that a formal partition is not a pre-condition for females specified in Section 8 to claim their shares.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Nagendra Prasad v. Kempananjamma, AIR 1968 SC 209; (1968) 1 SCR 124 | Section 8(1)(d) gives female relatives a right to claim a share in joint family property without partition being a condition precedent. | The Court distinguished the case, holding that the principle was inapplicable because the property in the present case did not come to the deceased by survivorship. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Section 8(1)(d) operates only when joint family property “passes to a single coparcener by survivorship.” The Court analysed the distinction between a Hindu joint family and a Hindu coparcenary, emphasising that:
- Joint family vs. coparcenary: A joint family may include wives, widows and unmarried daughters, whereas a coparcenary comprises only those male members who acquire an interest by birth and can demand partition.
- Concept of survivorship: Property passes by survivorship only when, on the death of one coparcener, it automatically vests in the remaining coparceners without any partition.
- Effect of the 1965 partition: The deceased received his 4/5th share at a partition when other coparceners were alive. That allotment rendered the property his individual property; it was not an acquisition by survivorship.
- Because the property was not received by survivorship, Section 8(1)(d) did not confer any present share on the widow or unmarried daughter.
- The precedent cited by the appellant was inapposite, as the factual predicate—property devolving to a single coparcener by survivorship—was absent.
Accordingly, the High Court was correct in holding that the widow and daughter had no subsisting interest in the property during the deceased’s lifetime, and their shares could not be excluded from the estate for duty purposes.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that property obtained by partition is individual property, not property acquired by survivorship; consequently, Section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Act does not apply. The widow and unmarried daughter are not entitled to have their claimed shares excluded from estate-duty assessment. The decision clarifies that survivorship under Section 8(1)(d) is triggered only when the property automatically devolves upon a single coparcener on the death of another, not when the property is previously partitioned and held individually. No broader precedent was set beyond this clarification, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Order
1. This appeal is by certificate granted by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The facts are very simple and lie in a narrow compass.
2. The appellant is the widow of Manjunatha Gowda. Manjunatha Gowda was a member of joint family consisting of Mallegowda, his father and other members of the Hindu Undivided Family. On 4-5-1965, on a partition amongst themselves, he got 4/5th share in the Hindu Undivided Family properties. On his demise, it is claimed that his unmarried daughter has 1/5th share in it and his widow, the appellant also has a share in that property.
3. He died on 18-8-1971 and when estate duty was sought to be imposed, the appellant claimed exclusion of her share and that of her daughter in the property under Section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act No. X of 1933), (for short, “the Act”). The Estate Duty Officer excluded her share from taxable estate. But, on appeal, it was reversed. On a reference, the High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Thus this appeal.
4. The question on which reference was sought by the assessee is as under: “Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that neither the unmarried daughter nor the wife of the deceased had any interest in the above property of the deceased while he was alive.”
5. Thus the only question for consideration is whether the estate left by Manjunatha Gowda was obtained by survivorship applying Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Section 8 reads as under:
“1. (a) At a partition of joint family property between a person and his son or sons, his mother, his unmarried daughters and the widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them.
(b) At a partition of joint family property among brothers, their mother, their unmarried sisters and the widows and unmarried daughters of their predeceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them.
(c) Sub-sections (a) and (b) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a partition among other coparceners in a joint family.
(d) Where joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the right to share of the classes of females enumerated in the above sub-sections.”
6. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 do not apply to the facts in this case. Only clause (d) applies to the facts in this case. A reading of it would indicate that when joint family property passes to a single coparcener, by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the rights of the share of the classes of females enumerated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8.
7. Classes of females have been mentioned in clause (a), namely, his mother, his unmarried daughters, widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issues; they are all entitled to a share with them.
8. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant, Smt Manjunatha Gowda, has obtained this estate left by her husband by survivorship. The Hindu joint family consists of male members descending lineally from a common male ancestor, together with their mother, wives or widows and unmarried daughters bound together by the fundamental principle of sapindaship or family relationship which is the essence and distinguishing feature of the institution. This body is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by act of parties save insofar that by adoption or marriage a stranger may be affiliated as a member thereof. An undivided family which is the normal condition of Hindu society is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship; therefore, not only the concerns of the joint family, but whatever relates to their commonality and their religious duties and observances are regulated by the members or by the manager to whom they have, expressly or by implication, delegated the task of regulation. The joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint properties is only an adjunct of the joint family and is not necessary for its constitution. Nor is it necessary that all the members possess rights or status even though the property of the family is called joint family property.
9. On the other hand, coparcenary is a narrower body than a joint family and consists of only those persons who have taken, by birth, an interest in the property of the holder for the time being and who can enforce a partition whenever they like. It commences with a common ancestor and includes a holder of joint property and only those males in his male line who are not removed from him by more than three degrees. Thus while a son, a grandson or a great-grandson is a coparcener with the holder of the property, the great-great-grandson cannot be a coparcener with him, because he is removed by more than three degrees from the holder.
10. Hindu Undivided Family is a concept and coparcenary is not one of the same under the Hindu law. But for the purposes of taxation under the Act, as in other tax measures, like the Income Tax Act, they are treated as one and the same. The question, therefore, is whether Manjunatha Gowda, when he had the property at the a partition between the coparceners, received it by survivorship? The primary meaning of the word “survive” is to live beyond the life or extent of, or to outlive; but it also has a secondary meaning namely, to live after, and as used in the phrase, “If either of my said sons should die without leaving a child which shall survive him”. The word “successor” has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1431 as under:
“One that succeeds or follows; one who takes the place that another has left, and sustains the like part or character; one who takes the place of another by succession. One who has been appointed or elected to hold an office after the term of the present incumbent.
Term with reference to corporations, generally means another corporation which, through amalgamation, consolidation, or other legal succession, becomes invested with rights and assumes burdens of first corporation.”
The word “survive” has been defined in the abovesaid dictionary thus:
“To continue to live or exist beyond the life, or existence of; to live through in spite of; live on after passing through; to remain alive; exist in force or operation beyond any period or event specified.”
The word “survivorship” has been defined in the same dictionary thus:
“The living of one of two or more persons after the death of the other or others. Survivorship is where a person becomes entitled to property by reason of his having survived another person who had an interest in it. A feature of joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety, whereby the surviving co-owner takes the entire interest in preference to heirs or devisees of the deceased co-owner.”
11. The word “survivor” has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon (1987 Edn.), thus:
“The longer liver of two joint-tenants, or of any two persons joined in the right of a thing. He that remaineth alive, after others be dead, etc.
Where a trust deed conveys certain property to certain trustees, and to the survivor of them, or the assigns of such survivor, the term ‘the survivor or his assigns’ necessarily imports the power to transfer by the survivor.”
The book further defines the word “survivorship” as under:
“The living of one of two or more persons after the death of the other or others. In relation to property the condition that exists where a person becomes entitled to property by reason of his having survived another person who had an interest in it.
‘Title by survivorship’ exists only when the estate is held in joint ownership (as) among Hindu coparceners governed by the Mitakshara law.”
12. The word “survivor” usually applies to the longest lives of two or more partners or trustees, and has been applied in some cases to the longest liver or joint tenants and legatees, and to others having a joint interest in any property.
13. Here, we are concerned with Manjunatha Gowda who had obtained property at a partition with coparceners. Survivorship, therefore, is the living of one of two or more persons after the death of the others having interest to succeed in the property by succession. The shares in the coparcenary property changes with death or birth of other coparceners. However, in the case of survivorship it is not of the same incidence. He received the property at the partition without there being any other coparcener. It is an individual property and, therefore, he did not receive it by survivorship but by virtue of his status being a coparcener of the Hindu Joint Family along with his father and brothers.
14. Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the High Court that since it is by partition, not by survivorship, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 does not get attracted, is not (sic) correct. No doubt, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nagendra Prasad v. Kempananjamma AIR 1968 SC 209, (1968) 1 SCR 124 which was also considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. This Court therein has explained that the object of Section 8(1)(d) is to give a right to claim a share in the joint family property to all females referred to in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Merely because partition by one of the coparceners under clauses (a) to (c) is a condition for a class of family members entitled to a share in the property, it does not apply to a case where class of family members entitled under clause 8(1)(d) since it stands altogether on a different footing and, therefore, partition is not a condition precedent for claiming a share by a class of family members enumerated in Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. But that principle has no bearing to the facts in this case for the reason that the property held was not received by survivorship.
15. Under these circumstances, family members enumerated under Section 8(1)(d) are not entitled to a share in the estate left by the deceased. Thus we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the High Court warranting interference.
16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Alert