Impartible estates and primogeniture fall under the Hindu Succession Act, with tax deeming rules confined to saved estates.

Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides inconsistent custom and prior Hindu law from its commencement, so the pre-existing rule of primogeniture and the impartible character of an estate do not survive except where the estate is preserved under section 5(ii). The tax deeming provisions for impartible estates operate only within that narrow saved category; they cannot continue to treat an estate as impartible once the statutory override applies. The same reasoning rejects any view that the old customary position continues until the holder's death, because the Act displaces inconsistent law immediately on commencement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 abrogated the pre-existing custom and rule of primogeniture governing impartible estates, except where the estate is saved by section 5(ii) of the Act; (ii) whether the holder of an impartible estate can continue to be assessed as an individual under section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; (iii) whether the Revenue could treat the estate as impartible until the holder's death notwithstanding section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 abrogated the pre-existing custom and rule of primogeniture governing impartible estates, except where the estate is saved by section 5(ii) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives the Act overriding effect and provides that any text, rule, interpretation of Hindu law, custom or usage inconsistent with the Act shall cease to have effect in matters covered by the Act. The Act was treated as a codifying measure replacing the old law in the field of intestate succession. The only relevant exception discussed was section 5(ii), which preserves estates descending to a single heir under a covenant, agreement, or pre-commencement enactment. Outside that exception, the prior customary rule of primogeniture could not survive the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The pre-existing custom and rule of primogeniture stood abrogated, except for estates protected by section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the holder of an impartible estate can continue to be assessed as an individual under section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Analysis: The deeming provisions in section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 apply only where an impartible estate exists in the legal sense contemplated by the saving provision in section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Once section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 abrogated the inconsistent custom, the estate lost the legal character necessary to attract the deeming fiction, unless it fell within the statutory exception. The fiction could not be extended beyond its limited field.

Conclusion: The deeming provisions applied only to impartible estates saved by section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not to the assessee's estate.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue could treat the estate as impartible until the holder's death notwithstanding section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Analysis: The argument that the old position would continue until the holder's death was rejected because section 4 operates from the commencement of the Act and displaces inconsistent prior law immediately. The Court held that allowing the custom to continue until succession opened would defeat the statute, create uncertainty in the commencement of the new legal regime, and leave the Act in abeyance contrary to its plain language.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not continue to treat the estate as impartible until the holder's death.

Final Conclusion: The old customary incidents of impartible estates were displaced by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the tax deeming provisions could operate only within the narrow statutory exception for estates protected by section 5(ii).

Ratio Decidendi: Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides inconsistent custom and law on succession from its commencement, so the rule of primogeniture and the impartible character of an estate do not survive except where the estate is expressly preserved by section 5(ii); tax deeming provisions for impartible estates are confined to that saved category.

---