1985 (3) TMI 61 - SC - Income Tax

Female heirs inheriting property shares under Section 6 don't automatically lose joint family membership without consent

The SC reversed the HC's decision in a partition suit involving agricultural land ceiling limits. After a male member's death, the remaining joint Hindu ... Suit for partition and separate possession - Applicability of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) to the joint Hindu family after the death of a male member - Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act) regarding the devolution of interest in coparcenary property - Whether a female who inherits a share in a joint family property by reason of the death of a male member of the family ceases to be member of the family? HELD THAT:- A legal fiction should no doubt ordinarily be carried to its logical end to carry out the purposes for which it is enacted but it cannot be carried beyond that. It is no doubt true that the right of a female heir to the interest inherited by her in the family property gets fixed on the death of a male member under section 6 of the Act but she cannot be treated as having ceased to be a member of the family without her volition as otherwise it will lead to strange results which could not have been in the contemplation of Parliament when it enacted that provision and which might also not be in the interest of such female heirs. As observed, the ownership of a definite share in the family property by a person need not be treated as a factor which would militate against his being a member of a family. We have already noticed that in the case of a Dayabhaga family which recognises unity of possession but not community of interest in the family properties amongst its members, the members thereof do constitute a family. That might also be the case of families of persons who are not Hindus. The theory that there was family settlement is not pressed before us. There was no action taken by either of the two females concerned in the case to become divided from the remaining members of the family. It should, therefore, be held that notwithstanding the death of Sham Rao, the remaining members of the family continued to hold the family properties together though the individual interest of the female members thereof in the family properties had become fixed. We have seen that a 'person' includes a 'family' for purposes of the Ceiling Act and the members of a family cannot hold more than one unit of ceiling area. The respondents cannot derive any assistance from the proviso to section 6 of the Ceiling Act. Section 6 of the Ceiling Act provided that where family consisted of members which exceeded five in number, the family would be entitled to hold land exceeding the ceiling area to the extent of one-sixth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five, subject to the condition that the total holding did not exceed twice the ceiling area. The proviso to section 6 of the Ceiling Act provided that for the purposes of increasing the holding of the family in excess of the ceiling area as stated above, if any member thereof held any land separately, he would not be regarded as a member of the family for that purpose. This proviso was intended to qualify what was stated in section 6 and was limited in its operation. It was confined to the purposes of increasing the ceiling area as provided in section 6 of the Ceiling Act. It cannot be construed as laying down that wherever a member of a family had his separate property he or she should be regarded as not a member of a family and that he or she would be entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area. The High Court having held that after the death of Sham Rao, the joint family of Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai continued and that there was nothing to show that Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai separated in residence after the death of Sham Rao erred in holding that each of them was entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area in the circumstances of this case. Its construction of the proviso to section 6 of the Ceiling Act is also erroneous. Its conclusion that 'even though, therefore, ordinarily a person may be a member of a Hindu joint family for the purposes of the Ceiling Act, he would not be held to be a member if he holds land separately' for all purposes is again erroneous for the reasons already given above. Thus, we are of the view that Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai alias Taibai were together entitled to retain only one unit of ceiling area. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was affirmed by the Tribunal is restored. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) to the joint Hindu family after the death of a male member.2. Determination of the ceiling area for the family under the Ceiling Act.3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act) regarding the devolution of interest in coparcenary property.4. Validity of the family settlement claim.5. Whether female members who inherit a share in joint family property cease to be members of the family.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Ceiling Act to the Joint Hindu Family:The family in question, governed by the Mitakshara School of law, owned extensive agricultural lands. After the death of Sham Rao Bhagwant Rao, his interest in the coparcenary property devolved on his son, wife, and mother in equal shares under Section 6 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the family continued to be joint in estate and constituted a family within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act, thus could not hold agricultural land in excess of one unit of the ceiling area. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the family remained joint despite the death of Sham Rao.2. Determination of the Ceiling Area:The Ceiling Act, which came into force on January 26, 1962, imposed a maximum limit on the holding of agricultural land. The Sub-Divisional Officer determined that the family held 313.57 acres of land, which was converted to 304.57 acres for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. The family was entitled to retain only 96 acres out of the total land, and the remaining 222.32 acres were declared surplus. The Supreme Court restored this order, rejecting the High Court's decision that each member of the family was entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area.3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Act:The High Court's interpretation of Section 6 of the Act was that the one-third interest in the family property devolved in equal shares on the heirs of Sham Rao, resulting in each heir being entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the notional partition under Section 6 of the Act for quantifying the interest inherited by the heirs did not imply that the family was disrupted or divided. The female heirs did not cease to be members of the family without their volition to separate.4. Validity of the Family Settlement Claim:The claim of a family settlement entered into on March 30, 1957, was not pressed before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Sub-Divisional Officer had previously held that the alleged family settlement was not true. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not consider this claim in its judgment.5. Female Members and Family Membership:The Supreme Court addressed the contention that female members who inherit a share in joint family property cease to be members of the family. It referred to the decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, stating that the right of a female heir to the interest inherited gets fixed on the death of a male member, but she does not cease to be a member of the family without her volition. The Court emphasized that the ownership of a definite share in the family property does not preclude a person from being a member of the family.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, restoring the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Court held that Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai, and Gangabai alias Taibai were together entitled to retain only one unit of ceiling area, rejecting the High Court's erroneous construction of the proviso to Section 6 of the Ceiling Act. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.