Tribunal rules property as Hindu Undivided Family asset under Dayabhaga Law

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Accountable Person, holding that the deceased had legally impressed his property with the character of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Dayabhaga Law. Consequently, the house property in question was classified as belonging to the HUF and not to the deceased individually. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the property became the HUF's asset from the date of declaration, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the ownership of the house property.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the deceased switched from Dayabhaga Law to Mitakshra Law.
2. Whether the deceased could form a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Dayabhaga Law.
3. Whether the house property in question belonged to the deceased individually or to the HUF.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case is whether the deceased switched from Dayabhaga Law to Mitakshra Law. The Appellate Controller held that the deceased had adopted Mitakshra Law, while the Revenue contended that there was no evidence to prove this switch. The Accountable Person submitted a declaration and affidavits to support the switch, but the Tribunal found that the evidence did not conclusively prove the deceased had relinquished Dayabhaga Law. As the onus was on the Accountable Person to prove the switch, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue on this issue.

Issue 2:
The next issue pertains to whether the deceased could form an HUF under Dayabhaga Law. The Accountable Person argued that even under Dayabhaga Law, the deceased could have formed an HUF and thrown his separate property into the common stock. The Tribunal referenced a decision of the Calcutta High Court, which established that under Dayabhaga Law, a person could indeed impress separate property with the character of HUF property. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the alternative submission of the Accountable Person and concluded that the deceased had legally impressed his separate property with the character of HUF property under Dayabhaga Law.

Issue 3:
Lastly, the issue of ownership of the house property was addressed. The Appellate Controller had determined that the property belonged to the HUF, while the Revenue argued it was the individual property of the deceased. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Controller's decision, stating that from the date of declaration, the property became the HUF property. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the property's classification as belonging to the HUF.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Accountable Person, holding that the deceased had legally impressed his property with the character of HUF under Dayabhaga Law, and therefore, the house property in question belonged to the HUF and not to the deceased individually.

---