TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the income arising therefrom should be considered as the income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 ?" The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which the karta is S. Periannan. The said Periannan is the son of one Sathappa Chettiar. On April 13, 1955, there was a partition in the Hindu undivided family of Sathappa Chettiar and his sons, Narayanan and Periannan. At that time, his sons Narayanan and Periannan were both minors, aged 12 and 1, respectively. An application was made on September 14, 1955, for the recognition of the partition under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer declined to recognise the partition by his order dated March 29, 1956. Sathappa Chetti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Bank of Madurai. The Income-tax Officer held that the father, Sathappa Chettiar, was owing to Periannan a sum of Rs. 2,77,850 as on April 13, 1973, and that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was withdrawn from him for the purpose of paying the advance for the purchase of the "Grove Estate". Consequently, the Income-tax Officer held that since the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid as advance for the purchase of the coffee estate represented ancestral property in the hands of Periannan, the estate purchased under the sale deed dated June 20, 1973, should also be considered as belonging to the assessee-Hindu undivided family. Thus, by his order dated February 20, 1976, the Income-tax Officer determined the total income at Rs. 66,630 and, in doing so, he inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f opinion on the question of law referred to above. The question we have to decide in these tax cases is whether the Grove Estate purchased by Periannan along with his brother, Narayanan, on June 20, 1973, is joint family property belonging to the assessee-Hindu undivided family or whether it is the self-acquired property of Periannan. As observed in Mayne's Hindu Law, 12th Edition, at page 552, "the whole doctrine of self-acquisition is briefly stated by Yajnavalkya as follows: 'Whatever is acquired by the coparcener himself, without detriment to the father's estate, as a present from a friend, or a gift at nuptials, does not appertain to the co-heirs. Not shall he who recovers hereditary property which has been taken away give it up to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, in Mangal Singh v. Harkesh, AIR 1958 All 42 dealing with the same question, observed as follows (p. 47) : "The general rule laid down by these cases which is common to Mitakshara and Dayabhaga both, therefore, appears to be that whatever may be the extent of the contribution of the acquiring member himself out of his self-acquired funds, if he takes the aid of any portion of joint or ancestral property in acquiring the property, however small that aid may be, the property so acquired assumes the character of joint family property and cannot be claimed by him as a self-acquisition. In this view of the matter, the extent of his contribution or that of the family fund becomes immaterial. If any help is taken from the family property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case clearly go to show that the sum of Rs. 50,000 which was utilised by Periannan for paying the advance for the purchase of the estate formed part of the funds allotted to Periannan on the partition that took place between his father and brother, Narayanan, on April 13, 1955, and, therefore, the estate in question would certainly become the property of the assessee-Hindu undivided family on its coming into existence. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that though the sum of Rs. 50,000 had been made available by Sathappa Chettiar from out of the amounts due by him to Periannan under the partition, subsequently, after Periannan got married and the assessee-Hindu undivided family came into existence, the same along with f....