TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (3) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ushpavathi under a deed dated 24th July, 1969 valued at Rs. 81,500. Before the Gift-tax Officer it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the above gift was void and therefore, gift-tax is not exigible. The Gift-tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention and brought to tax the above gift. 3. On appeal the AAC accepted the assessee's contention following the rulings cited before him. Aggrieved by the said order of the AAC the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 4. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the AAC erred in holding that the gift made by the karta of the Hindu undivided family to his wife is void. He pointed out that gift in this case is not a void gift but is only a voidable one. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ully considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the rulings cited before us. Under deed dated 24th July, 1969 Shri Malla AppaRao had made a gift under consideration. The said document is in Telugu. The assessee's learned counsel has furnished an English Translation thereof. The learned Departmental Representative has also transalated the settlement deed in English. After hearing the learned Departmental Representative and after perusing the English translation of the gift-tax deed provided to us we find that Shri Malla Apparao had not effected an absolute gift of the property viz. agricultural lands to his wife. He had only allowed her to enjoy the said property for her life time and it was further directed that after her life t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....again considered the issue. After referring to the various decisions of the High Courts their Lordships observed as under: "In view of the above authorities and in the absence of any specific textural authority stating that the gift is void as such, we are inclined to accept the principles stated by the Division Bench in Suryakantham vs. Suryanarayana Murthy viz., that the gift is not void but it does not bind the other coparceners who are affected thereby and that if they consent, the gift can be treated as valid. There is also implied consent and that consent may be given at time of the transaction or inferred by subsequent conduct." Later the Andhra Pradesh High Court again considered another case of Commissioner of Gift-tax, A.P.I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal that the legal effect of the gifts was that they were void. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of Nattuswamy and another vs. Gift-tax Officer and another (6), held at page 143 as under : ".........it is well-settled that under the Hindu law even the karta of a Hindu undivided family has no power to convey the properties by way of either settlement of gift." The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Gift-tax, Patiala vs. Tej. Nath(7) referred to various passages from Mulla's Hindu Law and observed as under: "It will appear from the combined reading of these paragraphs that the position on Hindu law is that whereas the father has the power to gift ancestral movables within r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty by the manager of the family is void." Later their Lordships reviewed the entire case law on the point. At page 108 their Lordships referred to the ruling of Mr. Justice Bhasyam Ayyangar in Rottala Runganatham Chetty vs. Pulicat Ramasami Chetty as under: "It has now been definitely settled by judicial decisions that it is incompetent to an undivided member of a Hindu family, to alienate by way of gift his undivided share or any portion thereof and that such alienation is void in toto......." "It was, however, observed that with regard to sale of property by the manager of, the Hindu undivided family for value, the conveyance would not be inoperative and void. In other words, it would be voidable. This decision definitely highl....