TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1934 (5) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessor) and uncle of the present zemindar who is a minor under the Court of Wards. By an award in 1920, he was given an annual maintenance of ₹ 6,000 by his elder brother; and this award was made the subject of a decree. The question now referred to us is: Whether the sum of ₹ 6,000 received as maintenance by the petitioner as the brother of the late Rajah of Kurupam entitled under the law to receive maintenance out of the ancestral impartible estate of Kurupam is a sum received by him as a member of Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Clause (1) Section 14 of the Act. 2. The identical question has been the subject of a decision by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court See In the matter of the Income Tax Reference of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese decisions there are other decisions passed alongside of these holding that the impartible estate still continues joint family property. It is enough to refer to one of such decisions, viz., Sri Rajah Lakshmi Devi Garu v. Sri Raja Surya Narayana Bahadur Garu 20 M 256. There Lord Davey observed: Even if impartible it may still be part of the common family property and descendable as such.... The real question, therefore is whether it has ceased to be part of the joint family property of the family of the first zemindar. 3. These observations of Lord Davey were relied on with approval by Lord Dunedin in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh 60 Ind Cas 531 : 43 A 228 : 9 A L J 37 : 33 C L J 388 : 40 M L J 3(sic)7 : (1921) M W N 3(sic)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it would not be necessary to prove the custom in each case.... 6. For example, in the case of Yarlagaddu Mallikarjuna Parasada Nayudu v. Yarlagadu Durga Prasada Naidu 21 M 147 : 2 Bom. L R 945 : 5 C W N 74 : 27 I A 51 : 10 M L J 294 : 7 Sar. P O J 761 (P C) the judgment says: As to the zamindari estate, the Board held that it was impartible and the consequence is that the plaintiffs as the younger brother of the zemindar retain such right and interest in respect of maintenance as belong to the junior members of a raj or other impartible estate descindible to a single heir. 7. These questions show that in the view of Lord Dunedin the right to maintenance which the son of a zemindar still possesses is not the creature of custom but it i....