TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of the coparcenary property passed on his death ? " The facts, briefly stated, are that late justice Harish Chandra died on September 11, 1972, leaving behind his widow, Smt. S. Harish Chandra, who filed a statement of the family property claiming that the deceased had only one-fourth share in the property. The deceased had one brother, Bishan Chandra, who had died even before leaving behind Smt. Swarup Rani, his widow, and no issue. The deceased, late justice Harish Chandra, had only one daughter who had been married before his death. According to the accountable person, the branch of the deceased had one-half share in the coparcenary property, and in that half share, the share of the deceased was only one-fourth and the remaining bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sought to be referred by the Department was one of law, made a reference of the same under section 64. In the instant case, the admitted position is that there was a joint Hindu family of late justice Harish Chandra and Bishan Chandra. Admittedly, a partition took place between the two brothers, as a result of which half share of the property went to the deceased, late justice Harish Chandra, and the remaining half went to his brother, Bishan Chandra. Late justice Harish Chandra had no male issue and the only daughter he had was married before his death. The argument raised on behalf of the accountable person before the Tribunal and which was accepted by it was that since she was entitled to have one-fourth share in the property rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partition or not. " Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, deals with the question of a coparcenery in a Mitakshara coparcenary dying without making any testamentary disposition of his undivided share in the joint family property. It provides that in the absence of a will, the interest of the deceased shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members. The proviso to section 6 confers new rights upon the specified female heirs and the predeceased daughter's son of a deceased coparcener, provided that the deceased had not disposed of his property by will. Explanation I defines the expression " the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property ". It incorporates the concept of a notional partition. The Explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conception of a joint Hindu family constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees counting from and inclusive of such ancestor. There can be no coparcenary if there are not more than two members to form it. " Counsel for the respondent urged that as the wife of late justice Harish Chandra was alive, the coparcenary could not come to an end. The submission is unfounded. " A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons, and great grandsons of the whole of the joint family. No female can be a coparcener a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d family consisting of D. P. Halwasiya, his two wives, Tribeni Devi and Anari Devi, a son and three daughters. D. P. Halwasiya died on December 22, 1957. Thereafter, Tribeni Devi died on December 5, 1958. It was on her death that the question of payability of the duty on her estate arose. The learned judges, who decided this case, were required to consider the effect of Explanation I to the proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. In that case, admittedly, there was a coparcenary as D. P. Halwasiya had son at the time of his death. For deciding the controversy before us, it is not necessary to deal with this case elaborately inasmuch as what will suffice to mention is only that the High Court found that there was coparcenary in exi....