Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 applied to property allotted to a coparcener on partition so as to treat the unmarried daughter and wife as having an interest in the deceased's share for estate duty purposes.
Analysis: The relevant statutory expression was "passes to a single coparcener by survivorship". The expression was construed in its settled Hindu law sense as referring to devolution by survivorship on the death of a coparcener, and not to allotment of a share on partition. A partition and survivorship were treated as legally distinct modes of devolution. Since the property in question had been allotted to the deceased at a partition and had not passed to him by survivorship, the statutory protection did not extend to the claim made by the accountable person. The beneficial character of the provision did not justify rewriting its language or departing from established principles of Hindu law.
Conclusion: Section 8(1)(d) did not assist the assessee, and the claim that the unmarried daughter had an interest in the deceased's property was rightly rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision conferring rights where joint family property passes by survivorship cannot be extended to property allotted on partition, because survivorship and partition are distinct legal concepts.