1961 (8) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Partition owelty constitutes vendor's charge for unpaid price, falls outside Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act 1958

Parvathi Amma Versus Makki Amma

Kerala HC addressed whether debts arising from partition fall under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. The court examined the meaning of ... Applicability of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, to debts arising from partition - Meaning of word 'Owelty - value of the excess of landed property allotted on partition to a co-sharer over his due share - treatment of debts arising from the sale of family property. Madhavan Nair, J. - HELD THAT:- As we have found owelty to be the price of land taken from one co-sharer & allotted to another on a partition', and that the charge for owelty is in substance, a vendor's charge for unpaid price, it is within the exception (vii) in the above definition and is therefore outside the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. The amounts therefore represent the plaintiffs share of the price of an elephant sold in auction, Not being concerned with an allocation of shares in partition of any landed property, the amounts cannot be called owelties. It is not disputed that if the elephant was sold to a third person, and that person be directed to pay the price to the co-sharers proportionately, the amounts that might then be due to each would be debts within the purview of Act 31 of 1958. The fact that the purchaser at the auction happened to be a sharer or certain sharers cannot affect the position in this respect. We hold therefore that the debts involved in. C. M. A. No. 218 of 1958 do come within the purview of Act 3l of 1958. The Subordinate Judge has held the amounts to be owelties and therefore exempt from the Act. In the view that we have taken above, the order has to be and is reversed and the debtors, defendants 1 to 10, are held entitled to the benefits of Act 31, of 1958 in regard to the amounts concerned. Costs will follow the event in all these appeals. Baghavan, J. - HELD THAT:- Owelty is the difference which is paid or secured by one coparcener or co-tenant to another for the purpose of equalising a partition. The power to award owelty has, from the earlier times, been regarded as necessary to the act of partitioning property; Looking from the 'point of view of the member to whom the excessive allotment is made, that his share is the excessive allotment diminished by the owelty; and looking from the side of the sharer to whom an insufficient allotment is made, that his share is the insufficient allotment increased by tbe owelty. In other words, the share of the member to whom the excessive allotment is made is that excessive allotment minus the owelty and the share of the member to whom the smaller allotment is made is that smaller allotment plus the owelty. The foregoing considerations establish that owelty is really part of the properties partitioned, that is, owelty is the substituted property and that it is neither unpaid purchase money, nor any liability in the sense in which a debt is understood to be a liability.' The appeals before me relate to owelties of partition and therefore they do not relate to debts and consequently, the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act has no application to them. In that view, I allow A. S, with costs and dismiss C. M. A. with costs as welt. In the result, A. S. are allowed with costs, and in view of the majority judgment C. M. A. No. is also allowed with costs. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:(a) Whether 'owelty' constitutes a 'debt' within the meaning of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958;(b) The nature and legal character of owelty in the context of partition of immovable properties among co-sharers, specifically whether owelty represents unpaid purchase money or a charge/lien on the property;(c) Whether the provisions of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act apply to amounts awarded as owelty in partition decrees;(d) The legal effect of owelty awarded in cases involving partition of joint family properties, including the question of whether owelty can arise in relation to movable property (such as an elephant) sold at auction among co-sharers, and if such amounts fall within the purview of the Debt Relief Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Whether owelty is a debt within the meaning of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, and the nature of oweltyRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined definitions and principles from various authoritative sources, including Black's Law Dictionary, Ballentirie's Law Dictionary, Freeman's 'Co-tenancy and Partition,' and the Supreme Court's judgment in Swaminatha Odayar v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore (AIR 1957 SC 577). The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Section 55(4)(b), which provides for a vendor's charge for unpaid purchase money, was also considered. The Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, defines 'debt' and excludes liabilities for which a charge is provided under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that owelty arises when immovable property cannot be partitioned into exactly equal shares among co-sharers, resulting in one party receiving a larger portion. To equalize the shares, the party receiving the excess pays a sum called owelty to the other party. The Court emphasized that owelty represents the value of the excess property allotted to one co-sharer over his due share and is the sum directed to be paid to make the partition equal.The Court held that owelty creates a charge or lien on the property allotted in excess, similar to a vendor's charge for unpaid purchase money under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation that 'owelty awarded on partition of immovable properties creates a charge on the land taken.' It further noted that even if the specific excess property is not identifiable, the charge spreads over the entire share allotted.Regarding the argument that owelty is not a debt because title to the excess property does not vest until owelty is paid, the Court rejected this contention. It held that title vests immediately upon partition, and the obligation to pay owelty is a definite sum due from one co-sharer to another, constituting a debt in the general sense.Key evidence and findings: The Court analyzed authoritative legal definitions and prior judicial pronouncements, including the nature of vendor's charge and equitable liens. It also considered the factual context of partition deeds and the practice of awarding owelty.Application of law to facts: Applying the above principles to the appeals involving owelty awarded in partition decrees, the Court concluded that owelty is not a mere inchoate liability but a binding debt secured by a charge on the property allotted in excess.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court addressed the creditor's argument that owelty is not a debt because the allottee of excess property may refuse to accept it and incur no liability. The Court held this argument to be without merit, emphasizing the immediate vesting of title and the binding nature of the obligation to pay owelty.Conclusions: Owelty is a debt secured by a charge under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act but is excluded from the definition of 'debt' under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act by virtue of the statutory exception. Therefore, owelty is outside the purview of the Debt Relief Act.Issue (c): Applicability of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958 to oweltyRelevant legal framework: The Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act defines 'debt' and expressly excludes liabilities secured by a charge under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court examined whether owelty falls within this exclusion.Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since owelty represents the unpaid price of excess property allotted on partition and is secured by a vendor's charge (a charge under Section 55(4)(b)), it falls within the statutory exclusion. Therefore, owelty is not a 'debt' under the Debt Relief Act and is not subject to its provisions.Application of law to facts: The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions that had held owelty to be a debt within the purview of the Debt Relief Act, thereby allowing the decree-holders to realize the entire owelty amounts unaffected by the Act.Issue (d): Whether amounts awarded as owelty in respect of movable property (elephant sold at auction) fall within the Debt Relief ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court distinguished between owelty arising from partition of immovable property and other debts arising from sale of movable property within a joint family context. It noted that owelty traditionally arises in the context of partition of immovable properties.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The amounts in the case involving the elephant represented the share of the price of a movable asset sold at auction. These amounts were not owelty because they were not related to partition of landed property. The Court held that such amounts are debts within the meaning of the Debt Relief Act and are therefore subject to its provisions.Application of law to facts: The Court reversed the lower court's finding that these amounts were owelty and exempt from the Act. It held that the defendants were entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act regarding these amounts.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the purchaser being a co-sharer changes the nature of the debt, emphasizing that the nature of the transaction governs the applicability of the Act.Conclusions: Debts arising from sale of movable property within the family, even if purchased by co-sharers, fall within the purview of the Debt Relief Act and are not exempt as owelty.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'While effecting a partition of joint family properties it would not be possible to divide the properties by metes & bounds there being of necessity an allocation of properties of unequal values amongst the members of the joint family. Properties of a larger value might go to one member and properties of a smaller value to another and therefore there would have to be an adjustment of the values by providing for the payment by the former to the latter by way of equalisation of their shares. This position has been recognised in law and a provision for such payment is termed 'a provision for Owelty or equality of partition'............. It therefore follows that when an owelty is awarded to a member on partition for equalisation of the shares on an excessive allotment of immovable properties to another member of the joint family, such a provision of owelty ordinarily creates a lien or a charge on the land taken under the partition.' (Paragraph 2)'Owelty is, therefore, a liability for which a charge as provided in Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act does enure.' (Paragraph 5)'Being a liability in a definite sum due from the co-sharer who took excess property to another who was given less than his due on partition, owelty is a debt in the general sense of the term.' (Paragraph 6)'As we have found owelty to be the price of land taken from one co-sharer & allotted to another on a partition', and that the charge for owelty is in substance, a vendor's charge for unpaid price, it is within the exception (vii) in the above definition and is therefore outside the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958.' (Paragraph 7)'The debts involved in C. M. A. No. 218 of 1958 do come within the purview of Act 31 of 1958. The Subordinate Judge has held the amounts to be owelties and therefore exempt from the Act. In the view that we have taken above, the order has to be and is reversed and the debtors, defendants 1 to 10, are held entitled to the benefits of Act 31, of 1958 in regard to the amounts concerned.' (Paragraph 9)'The parties to a voluntary partition may agree to pay owelty to equalise the shares allotted. Owelty is the difference which is paid or secured by one coparcener or co-tenant to another for the purpose of equalising a partition... An agreement for owelty ordinarily creates a lien or charge on the land taken under the partition and this lien may exist because of an express agreement between the parties providing for it or it may be implied in the absence of such express agreement.' (Paragraph 13)'The member to whom excessive allotment of property has been made on such partition cannot claim to acquire properties falling to his share irrespective of or discharged from the obligation to pay owelty to the other members. What he gets for his share is therefore the properties allotted to him subject to the obligation to pay such owelty and there is imported by necessary implication an obligation on his part to pay owelty out of the properties allotted to his share and a corresponding lien in favour of the members to whom such owelty is awarded on the properties which have fallen to his share.' (Paragraph 15)'The foregoing considerations establish that owelty is really part of the properties partitioned, that is, owelty is the substituted property and that it is neither unpaid purchase money, nor any liability in the sense in which a debt is understood to be a liability.' (Paragraph 18)The Court's final determinations were:(i) Owelty awarded on partition of immovable properties creates a charge or lien on the property allotted in excess and represents a liability secured by a vendor's charge under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act;(ii) Owelty is excluded from the definition of 'debt' under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, and thus is outside the purview of the Act;(iii) Amounts awarded as owelty in partition decrees involving immovable property are not subject to debt relief under the Act;(iv) Amounts arising from sale of movable property within the family (such as an elephant sold at auction) are debts within the meaning of the Debt Relief Act and are subject to its provisions, even if the purchaser is a co-sharer;(v) The appeals concerning owelty in immovable property partitions were allowed, while the appeal concerning the movable property sale was allowed in favor of the debtors under the Debt Relief Act.