1998 (12) TMI 49 - HC - Wealth-tax

Property obtained post-marriage deemed joint family property, establishing Hindu Undivided Family status

The Court held that the property obtained by the assessee at the partition should be considered joint family property after his marriage, establishing his ... - Issues:1. Whether the property obtained by the assessee at the partition should be held as that of the joint family after his marriage.2. Whether the status of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 was HUF or individual.Analysis:1. The assessee was part of an HUF until a partition in 1952, after which he remained a bachelor until his marriage in 1960. The property in question was received at the partition and held by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held it to be joint family property, rejecting the claim of individual ownership by the assessee.2. The assessee argued that even though his family could be termed as an HUF, the property belonged solely to him as an individual, as neither his daughter nor wife could claim a share. He contended that the property retained its individual character despite being ancestral.3. The Supreme Court's decision in Surjit Lal Chhabda's case was cited, emphasizing that property can be considered HUF property only if multiple family members can claim a share. The Court highlighted the importance of the property's antecedent history and the presence of multiple sharers within the family.4. The Court differentiated between joint family property and individual property, stressing that the absence of a second sharer within the HUF does not automatically convert joint family property into individual property. The property's ancestral nature and the existence of a family were deemed crucial factors.5. Citing the N.V. Narendranath case, the Court reiterated that ancestral property allotted to a member with a family constitutes HUF property, regardless of the absence of a son who could claim partition. The property's ancestral status was deemed significant.6. The assessee relied on decisions from Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, suggesting that an individual assessed as such after receiving ancestral property should remain so until having a son. However, other High Courts held that such property would be considered HUF property even without a male heir.7. After considering the arguments and precedents, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the property obtained at the partition became joint family property after the assessee's marriage, establishing the status of the assessee as HUF for the assessment year 1982-83.