1978 (2) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to Nathmal Tolaram from 1936-37 and that the income of the business was assessed as Hindu undivided family income since then. The previous records do not seem to be very clear, but, from the year 1942 to 1950, the income of this business was certainly assessed as Hindu undivided family income. It was partitioned with effect from 6th April, 1949. After the partition, the business carried on at two places, Dhubri and Gauripore, was converted into a partnership business evidenced by a deed of partnership executed by the three brothers on 7th April, 1949. In this deed, it was admitted that the business had been carried on previous to the partition as Hindu undivided family business. On 19th September, 1950, an application was made under se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The following passage in Mulla's Hindu Law, fourteenth edition, at page 278, has been quoted and relied upon by the High Court : " 228. Property jointly acquired.--(1)Where property has been acquired in business by persons constituting a joint Hindu family by their joint labour, the question arises whether the property so acquired is joint family property, or whether it is merely the joint property of the joint acquirers, or whether it is ordinary partnership property. If it is joint family property, the male issue of the acquirers take an interest in it by birth [section 221,sub-section (1)]. If it is the joint property ofthe acquirers it will pass by survivorship, but the male issue of the acquirers, do not take interest in it by bir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... originally belonged to the Hindu undivided family belonging to the appellant, his father and his brothers. There were joint family properties of that Hindu undivided family when the partition took place between the appellant, his father and his brothers and these properties came to the share of the appellant and the question presented for determination is whether they ceased to bear the character of joint family properties and became the absolute properties of the appellant. As pointed out by the judicial Committee in Arunachalam's case [1957] AC 540 ; [1958] 34 ITR (ED) 42 ; 3 EDC 825, it is only by analysing the nature of the rights of the members of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be born, that it can be deter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s which did not cease to be joint family properties in the hands of the appellant. Our conclusion is that when a coparcener having a wife and two minor daughters and no son receives his share of the joint family properties on partition, such property in the hands of the coparcener belongs to the Hindu undivided family of himself, his wife and minor daughters and cannot be assessed as his individual property. It is clear that the present case falls within the ratio of the decision of this court in Gowli Buddanna's case [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC) and the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the respondent was that of a Hindu undivided family and not that of an individual." Learned counsel for the appellant had relied on C....