TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rajpipla Palace was liable to be treated as Hindu undivided family property and, after the death of H.H. Rajendrasinghji, whether the income from the property was assessable wholly as the individual income of H.H. Raghubirsinghji or had to be split between the Hindu undivided family and him in his individual capacity; and whether the property was subject to succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 rather than devolution by primogeniture.
Analysis: The property was treated by the family as private property and no material established a custom of primogeniture or an impartible estate. Rajendrasinghji acquired the property as heir of his father pursuant to the consent decree, and because the devolution occurred before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property was held to be Hindu undivided family property in his hands during his lifetime. On his death after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the devolution of his interest was governed by section 6, and in the presence of Class I female heirs the interest did not pass by survivorship alone but by intestate succession to that extent. The Court further held that the share inherited by Raghubirsinghji under section 8 could not be treated as Hindu undivided family property in his hands, while his coparcenary interest in the same property continued to bear the character of joint family property. The income from the property therefore had to be apportioned between his family interest and his individual inherited interest.
Conclusion: Rajpipla Palace was not shown to devolve by primogeniture; it was Hindu undivided family property in the hands of H.H. Rajendrasinghji, and after his death the income had to be split between the Hindu undivided family and H.H. Raghubirsinghji individually in the proportion of their respective interests. The estate duty question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person.
Ratio Decidendi: Property inherited before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 may retain Hindu undivided family character in the hands of the heir, but the share that devolves by intestate succession under sections 6 and 8 of that Act is the individual property of the successor and not joint family property.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
