TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society. Consequently, the once egalitarian society became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of Sati, Child Marriage, Sexual Harassment, Domestic Violence, Dowry Harassment and such like disparages. Legislature has time and again, brought forth reforms to overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind thereby enabling her to achieve her full potential and march shoulder to shoulder with men. 2. Despite robust legislations, real change has been slow due to the pervasive ambivalence and deeply ingrained stereotypes. This is where Courts assume significance for facilitation of implementation of the laws resulting in actualisation for the stakeholders. This has been true, especially in the laws conferring rights to women. It is known that though the right of women to own property came to be recognized under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the grim reality is that women were compelled, by their circumstances and family members, to forgo their rights in property. The tenacious role of Courts in upholding such rights of women has propel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty was purchased vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.1943 by Late Shri D.R. Gupta from Mr. J.C. Roberts. Copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.07.1943 is filed on record. (b) Moveable Properties -- (i) Shares of Motor and General Finance Ltd., (ii) Deposits with Motor and General Finance Ltd., (iii) Bank of Account in Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road, (iv) Bank Account in Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road. 8. Admittedly, "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF" is assessed to Income Tax and has been filing Returns for the HUF property and the PAN Number allotted to the HUF was AAA HD 4230 M. All the assets belonging to the HUF, barring the immovable property, were disposed of in the 1980s. 9. Over a period of time all the sons of late Shri D.R. Gupta expired. Shri R.N. Gupta was the last Karta of "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF", who expired on 14.02.2006. The question thus, arose as to who would acquire the status of the Karta of the HUF after his demise. The respondent No.1 as well as other members of the "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF", exchanged various e-mails regarding respondent No. 1, Sujata daughter of Late Shri K.M. Gupta becoming the Karta of the HUF, who in view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether the suit has been valued properly and proper court fee has been paid thereon? (OPP) 2. Whether the suit for declaration, is maintainable in its present form? (OPP) 3. Whether there exists any coparcenary property or HUF at all?(OPP) 4. Whether the plaintiff is a member of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF? And if so, to what effect? (OPP) 5. Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon the demise of her father Sh. K.M. Gupta in 1984? (OPD) 6. Assuming existence of a D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, whether the plaintiff can be considered to be an integral part of the HUF, particularly after her marriage in 1977, and whether the plaintiff has ever participated in the affairs of the HUF as a coparcener, and its effect? (OPP) 7. Assuming existence of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, whether the plaintiff is a coparcener of and legally entitled to be the Karta?(OPP) 8. What is the effect of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, in 2005 and has it made any changes in the concept of Joint Family or its properties in the law of coparcenary? (OPP) 9. Relief." 16. The respondent No.1/Sujata Sharma deposed as PW1 in suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equality in the scheme of division of properties and does not confer the role of Kartaship to women as the same is still confined to the senior most male Coparcener in the family as provided under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It is reiterated that the law in regard to Kartaship has remained unchanged by the Amendment and the settled position remains that only the eldest Hindu male can become a Karta. 21. Thus, notwithstanding the 2005 Amendment to the Act, 1956, a daughter cannot become the Karta of the HUF of her father's family though she may only be recognised as the manager of a Joint Hindu Family. 22. It is further stated that Section 6 of the Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) only recognises the right of daughters to have an interest in the coparcenary and the same cannot be equated with her right to become a Karta. Barring this right to be recognised as a coparcener, no other change has been brought with respect to HUF which is still governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. As per this School of Law, a Joint Hindu Family is one that traces its descendants through a common male ancestor and includes wives and unmarried daughters as their members. 23. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Single Judge failed to consider the judgement of the Apex Court in Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi AIR 2016 SC 139 where it was held that a woman cannot become a Karta even after the 2005 Amendment as it keeps the erstwhile legal position on Kartaship intact which is evident from the true nature of the amended and unamended Section 6 of the Act, 1956. 28. The Law Commission in its 174th Report dated 05.05.2000, while recommending that women should exercise all equal rights as a Coparcener, also stated that a woman cannot be a Karta. It was based on these recommendations that the Legislature amended Section 6 to the Act, 1956; had the intent of this Amendment been to recognise the right of a woman to become a Karta, the Amendment would have expressly stated so. Thus, the impugned Judgement dated 22.12.2015 is premised on incorrect appreciation of change in law brought by the Amendment Act, 2005 to the Act, 1956. 29. It is further argued that a Karta takes decisions on behalf of the family which has a binding effect on them. He has the right to represent the family in litigations, arbitrations and settlements by way of compromise and it is thus, imperative for the Kart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is further argued by the appellant that the Suit for Declaration was filed by respondent No. 1/Smt. Sujata Sharma in retaliation to the objections raised by the appellant when she attempted to sell the Charitable Trust created by Late Shri D.R. Gupta by undervaluing the said property. It is evident that respondent No. 1's objective in filing the Suit was to gain control over the property and sell the same in order to unjustly enrich herself. 34. The appellant has further submitted that the demise of Shri R.N. Gupta after 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 resulted in a deemed partition of the HUF and thus, respondent No. 1 cannot claim to be a Coparcener. 35. The appellant in his Written Submissions has further stated that the father of respondent No.1 passed away on 18.02.1984. The 2005 Amendment, being prospective in nature, would apply to respondent No. 1 only if her father was surviving when the Amendment came into force. The share of the deceased Coparcener to which his legal heirs are entitled gets crystallised upon his death as held in State Bank of India vs. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969 1330. Thus, none of the daughters, other than Ms. Meera Sawhney and Ms. Gargi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Yanadi & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 788to argue that a daughter is a Coparcener who has the same rights as a son. Further, the role of a Karta is conferred on the senior most member of the family as held in Tribhovan Das Tamboli vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1538. Considering that only a Coparcener can become a Karta of an HUF as held in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Seth Govind Ram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 24, a woman can become a Karta if she is the eldest Coparcener. 39. In response to the appellant's assertions of discharging his responsibilities in the nature of Karta since long, it is averred that respondent No. 1 has been dealing with the Defence Estate Officer from 2006 regarding the HUF property and had also filed Objections to the notification of the Delhi Development Authority, paid House Tax, got a Pan Card issued and the bank account revived. 40. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10, in their Written Submissions, contended that in view of the decision in Prakash vs. Phulvati (supra), respondent No. 1 is not a Coparcener as her father had expired on 17.02.1983 i.e., prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Thus respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the affirmative in Vineeta Sharma (supra) wherein it is held that Section 6 as amended in 2005 is not retrospective as concluded transactions or vested rights cannot be reopened or affected. The provision is rectroactive in its application as it confers right based on an antecedent event of birth. The only qualification for becoming a Karta of an HUF is that the concerned person must be a Coparcener. Reliance was placed on Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli (supra) to describe the role of a person appointed as a Karta. 46. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, learned Amicus Curiae, further submitted that earlier only a male could become the Coparcener of an HUF as the coparcenary rights were confined only to males. Thus, the sole ground for disentitling a daughter from becoming a Karta no longer survives. Therefore, if a daughter is the senior most Coparcener, then she must become the Karta. 47. Further, a daughter does not cease to be a Coparcener in view of her marriage as the Amendment does not distinguish between a married and an unmarried daughter. The Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 clearly states that a daughter becomes a Coparcener in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tance of property and not its management by a Karta which continues to be governed by the customs and the interpretation of the ancient texts of Hindu religion. It is argued that the statutory enlargement of rights of a woman to be a Coparcener and the devolution of interest in the coparcenary property has been made under Section 6 of Act, 1956 and it does not extend to Kartaship. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have exceeded the intent and purpose of the Act, 1956 and amended Section 6 of the Act, 1956 to conclude that a recognition of a woman as a Coparcener included the right of being a Karta. 54. To determine the contention raised by the appellant, it becomes pertinent to refer to the concept of Joint Hindu Family and HUF under the traditional Hindu Law. 55. A Joint Hindu Family consists of male members descended lineally from a common male ancestor, together with their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. They are bound together by the fundamental principle of Sapindaship or family relationship, which is the essential feature of the institution. The cord that knits the members of the family is not property but the relationship of one another....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the family interests on behalf of the other members. The managership of the joint family property comes to a person by birth and he does not owe his position as manager to be presumed to the consent of his coparceners." 60. In B M Gandhi's Hindu Law, the concept of "managership" or "Kartaship" has been similarly explained which is as under: - "19. Manager (Karta): - (a) Who is/Who can be. The Hindu joint family is governed by the principle of subordination. Its affairs are managed by one person, called the Karta or the manager." 61. It was explained by Bombay High Court in Gansavant Balsavant vs. Narayan Dhond Savant, (1883) ILR 7 Bom 467 that a Hindu family may be regarded as a corporation whose interests are necessarily centred in the manager, the presumption being that the manager is acting for the family unless the contrary is shown. Unless the Karta or manager relinquishes his right or there are exceptional, extraordinary or compelling circumstances, juniors in the family cannot exercise this right. Even if the Karta is a lunatic, the juniors cannot alienate the property without obtaining a Court's order under the Lunacy Act, 1912. 62. In Tribhuvanda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6 of the Act, 1956 reads as "devolution of interest in coparcenary property" and the relevant portion of the Section has been extracted below: - "―(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,― (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004." 68. In the case of Raichurmatham Prabhakar vs. Rawatmal Dugar (2004) 4 SCC 766, the Apex Court observed that the heading or title of a provision plays a limited role in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut if the enacting words are capable of either of the constructions offered by the parties, the construction which fits the preamble may be preferred. 73. In R. Venkataswami Naidu vs. Narasram Naraindas (1966) 1 SCR 110, it was observed that though a Preamble is a key to interpreting the statute, it cannot restrict the enacting part of the statute when it is clear, wide and unambiguous. While acknowledging that the Objective for the legislation is illustrated in the Preamble, it was explained that the remedy in the enacting part of a statute may extend beyond the cure of the evil as stated in the Preamble. 74. Nothing prevents the Legislature from providing coparcenary rights to a daughter on the same footing as a son in a manner that is beyond the wordings of the Preamble of the Act, 1956. Rather there is not even a scintilla of ambiguity in the words of Section 6 of the Act, 1956 as they clearly state that a daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara Coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener. The explicit language of Section 6 of the Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cenary is derived from the joint ownership of a common pool of assets held by a family and the necessary corollary was that who owns the property, would have a right to manage it. When under the traditional Hindu law, the woman was not entitled to coparcenary property; resultantly, she could not assume the position of Karta. However, the Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 redefines the meaning of coparcenary as understood under the traditional Hindu Law, which is no longer limited to devolution of interest in the coparcenary property alone but encompasses all other incidents of a Coparcener, including the right to be a Karta. To say that a woman can be a coparcener but not a Karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated Object of introduction of Amendment. 79. We also find support to this conclusion from Mulla on Hindu Law, 20th Edition-Volume II at Pages 234-235 which succinctly expresses the most logical interpretation of the Amendment Act, 2005 as under: "The Hindu Succession Act has been amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. As a result of the amendment daughters have been conferred equal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The appellant claims that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate a significant aspect that performance of spiritual and managerial duties is by the Karta of the HUF which respondent No. 1 being a female, cannot perform. Thus, it has to be accepted that only the appellant, being the eldest male coparcener, is eligible to become the Karta of the "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF". 83. This argument raises a fundamental question of the necessary competency of the woman to perform the religious and familial obligations of a Karta in the backdrop of Mitakshara Law. Spiritual efficacy of a female Coparcener: - 84. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Surendranath v. Musammat Heeramonee,12 M. I. A. 81 observed that in the Hindu Law there is so close a connection between their religion and the succession to property that the preferable right to perform the shradha is commonly viewed as governing also the preferable right to succession of property as a general rule. 85. In the case of Katama Natchivar vs. Raja of Sivaganga, 9 M.I. A., 610, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council enunciated that there are two leading rules of Inheritance that are f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: - "Though under the Mitakshara the right to inherit does not arise from the right to offer oblation, the test to be applied when a question of preference arises in the case of sagotra sapindas, is the capacity to offer oblation, but, in the case of bhinna gotra sapindas, "primary test‟ is "propinquity of blood‟ and, when the degree of blood relationship furnishes no certain guide,‟ best is the capacity for conferring spiritual benefit." 90. From the above discussion, we may conclude that the spiritual efficiency is an indispensable requirement under the Dayabhaga Law; however, the same cannot be presumed under Mitakshara law. It is amply clear from the above that the spiritual duties performed by a Karta of an HUF governed by Mitakshara law was only coincidental to the fact that only male descendants were entitled to become coparceners in the past. Thus, with the amendment in law conferring daughters with coparcenary rights, spiritual efficiency or the ability to perform certain rituals cannot become a prerequisite qualification for becoming a Karta of an HUF governed by Mitakshara law. 91. Spiritual efficiency comes under consideration only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the HUF on behalf of its members. 95. In a similar vein, in Sunderlal Nanalal (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad 1983 SCC OnLine Guj 198, it was observed that the Karta of the HUF, due to his old age and indifferent health, can assign the role of managing the business to a Coparcener through an agreement on behalf of the family. 96. From the aforesaid rulings, we may observe that while a HUF cannot have two Kartas, it being a legal entitlement of the eldest member of an HUF, but the duty of management can be performed by another Coparcener in given circumstances. This relegation of managerial responsibility does take away the legal title of a Karta, unless it is renounced by the person legally entitled to be a Karta. 97. This court thus, concludes that being a Karta is conferment of legal status which includes right to manage the HUF properties and even if the appellant represented himself as Karta in official correspondence on behalf of HUF to manage the property, it does not take away the legal right of the eldest member of the Coparcener of the family, even if she is a woman, to stake a claim to be a Karta. Societal stereotypes - Social....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est of popular acceptance was applied to hold that the guarantee of constitutional rights does not depend upon their exercise being favourably regarded by majoritarian opinion. The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard statutory rights that are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection. 102. Further, the rights of the members in a coparcenary remain unaffected even when a female coparcener acts as its Karta as Coparceners continue to enjoy the same entitlements and interests which they otherwise have; their rights as coparcener do not get impinged in any manner. If there arises any scepticism about the skills, efficiency, sincerity or ability of female Coparceners to act as the Karta or being influenced by her in-laws, the other Coparceners have adequate remedies to seek for a partition or impeach any wrongful alienation of property made by the Karta. 103. Moreover, contention that the husband of a female Karta would have an indirect control over the activities of the HUF of her father's family is only a parochial mindset which even the legislature had diligently attempted to oust through Section 14 of the Act, 1956 to accord wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....daughter should be alive on the date of the amendment. 108. The Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra) further observed that the amended provision of Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956 provides that on and from the date of Amendment, the daughter is conferred the right of coparcenary "in her own right‟ and "in the same manner as a son‟. The right of Coparcener is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with the incidents of coparcenary as that of a son. Hence, as this right is acquired by way of birth, the same is unobstructive in nature as long as the birth is within the degrees of coparcenary. It is thus, irrelevant that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with the rights is alive or not as the right to be a Coparcener is independent of the existence of the father, making respondent No.1 the eldest surviving Coparcener. 109. Thus, the right of the daughter of a Coparcener to enjoy the status of a Coparcener from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cannot hinge upon the life span of her father. Such a distinction can certainly not sustain the test of intelligible differentia that was sought to be addressed through the Amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is whether the HUF stood dissolved upon the demise of Shri D.R. Gupta on 02.09.1977 or continued even after the demise of his five sons. 117. The appellant DW1/Manu Gupta had deposed that "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF" ceased to exist in the year 1971 on the demise of Shri D.R. Gupta and thus, the question of anyone being the Karta of this HUF does not survive. PW3/N.V. Satyanarayan, Defence Estate Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi produced the copy of the Letter dated 01.06.1985 Ex. PW3/A addressed to Smt. Shanta K Mohan, wife of Shri Krishan Mohan (father of the respondent No. 1), in regard to the mutation of the suit property. The said letter is reproduced as under: - " No: 3/220-F/III/180 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICE, DELHI CIRCLE, DELHI CANTONMENT DATED 01, Jun, 1985. To Mrs. Shanta K. Mohan W/O Late Shri Krishan Mohan 18, Anand Lok, NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : MITIGATION IN THE NAME OF SUCCESSOR OF LATE Shri Krishan Mohan (Karta) (HUF). In r/o No. 4, University Road, Delhi. Reference your affidavit dated 13.8.1984 received in this office on 24thAugust, 1984 under your letter dated 16/21.8.1984. 2. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri D.R. Gupta and the properties of the HUF became the joint property of the legal heirs of Shri. D.R. Gupta. 121. Respondent No. 1 Sujata Sharma has asserted that a partial partition of moveable assets took place on 26.03.1977 in respect of deposits and shares in Motor and General Finance Limited. There is no denial that pursuant to this partial partition, each coparcener became entitled to receive from the HUF, a sum of Rs. 28,000/- from the deposits of Motor and General Finance Limited held by HUF and further each was to get 1000 equity shares of the Motor General and Finance Limited as their respective share while the other properties continued to remain in the HUF. The Notice of Partial Partition as required under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also agreed to be sent. 122. Another significant fact which was stated and which essentially has not been disputed by all the parties, except Smt. Meera Sawhney and Smt. Gargi Gupta (respondent Nos. 9 and 10 who are the two legal heirs of Late Shri B.N. Gupta), is a Family Settlement of 01.04.1999 Ex.PW1/5 which admittedly has the signatures of four sons of the deceased Shri D.R. Gupta (Shri M.N. Gupta, Shri R.N. Gup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of late Shri D.R. Gupta, who died on 17th Feb. 1984) and is survived by his wife Smt. Shanta K Mohan and Mrs. Sujata Sharma & Mrs. Radhika Seth, daughter, heirs to the party of the "First Part". 1/5th Share. b) Shri Mahendra Nath Gupta (as karta of the "Second Party"). 1/5th Share. c) Mr. Ravinder Nath Gupta (party of the "Third Part"). 1/5th Share. d) Mr. Bhupinder Nath Gupta (Party of the "Fourth Part"). 1/5th Share. e) Mr. Jitender Nath Gupta (Party of the "Fifth Part"). 1/5th Share. 7. No one party or parties hereto shall be entitled to bind the other parties hereto by his acts or deed with respect to the affairs of the said business. 8. It has been further agreed between the parties that the immovable property No. 4 University Road, Delhi, after the partition, if any, of the HUF, and recording of this family settlement, will continue to remain in the name of D.R. Gupta & Sons, HUF before the Revenue Authority/competent Authority." 124. As is already discussed in detail, all the family members have admitted this document of Memorandum of Settlement dated 01.04.1999 Ex. PW1/5. Pertinently, even respondent Nos. 9 and 10 hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Mr. Mahender Nath Gupta, there was no Karta as such but for the Military Defence Estate Office, the information regarding the passing away of Mahender Nath Gupta, was given by Mr. Ravinder Nath Gupta". 129. DW1/Manu Gupta (appellant herein) thereafter deposed that earlier Income Tax Returns were being filed, but the same have not been filed now for the last many years. On being asked specifically if he was a Coparcener of "D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF", DW1 stated that "assuming the HUF exists, I am Coparcener otherwise I am member of the Joint Family". 130. DW1/Manu Gupta further deposed that like the members before him who informed the Defence Estate Office about the passing away of previous Karta to the Estate Office as the Karta of the family, he also informed the said Office. He even informed the Motor and General Finance Limited Company where the HUF holds some shares to change the name of the authorised signatory from that of Mr. R.N. Gupta to his name. 131. DW1/Manu Gupta also deposed that the House Tax for the suit property was paid upto 2007, but he was not aware thereafter. The system of paying the house tax was that all the five branches of the family used to share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2)of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement." 135. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forbid alienations, made by their direct ancestors" 138. Thus, when the partition of an HUF takes place, the shares are divided amongst each branch of the HUF. However, this division amongst branches does not lead to the creation of a separate coparcenary in each branch; rather the share so allotted to a branch is equally divided amongst all its leaves (members). 139. In the present case, the shares in the Family Settlement of 1999 has been determined as 1/5 per stirpe (which included the legal heirs of Late Shri K.M. Gupta, Shri M.N. Gupta, R.N. Gupta, Shri J.N. Gupta), thus constituting a division of their respective shares as per Hindu Law. 140. In this context, the decision of the Privy Council in Appovier vs. Rama Subba Aiyan 11 M.I.A. 75 (1866) described the manner in which severance of status of HUF may take place which reads as under: - "According to the true notion of an undivided family in Hindoo law, no individual member of that family, whilst it remains undivided, can prejudice of the joint and undivided property, that he, that particular member, has a certain definite share. No individual of an undivided family could go to the place of the receipt of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d bounds or physically into different portions to complete a partition. Disruption of status can be brought about by any of the modes (1) by a father during his lifetime between himself and his sons by dividing properties equally amongst them, (2) by agreement, or (3) by a suit or arbitration. It is open to the parties to enjoy their share of property as tenants-in-common in any manner known to law according to their desire. However, Income Tax law introduces certain conditions of its own to give effect to the partition under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act. Section 171 postulates that until a claim is made under Section 171(2) of the Income Tax Act that there has been a partition (total or partial) of the HUF, it continues to exist under the Income Tax records. Sub-Section 1 of Section 171 of the Income Tax Act contains a deeming fiction that provides that a Hindu family hitherto cease as undivided, shall be deemed for the purpose of the Income Tax Act to continue to be a Hindu Undivided Family, except where and insofar as a finding of partition has been recorded in respect of it under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act. Such finding of partition can be recorded only where the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Suit for the purpose of court fee is for the purpose of affixing the requisite court fee. 148. We find that the respondent No. 1 has vaguely stated that the Suit valuation is more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 should have been specific in giving valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. Considering that the plaintiff has the discretion to value their suit as held by the full bench of this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi vs. Kishan Lal Kalra ILR (1974) 2 Del 491and as the trial has continued for over 18 years, we do not deem it appropriate to seek further clarification on this aspect and hold the jurisdictional valuation as Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. 149. The next aspect is what should be the court fee payable on this valuation. The declaratory Suits essentially deal with the status of a person or a property and, therefore, being an inherent right is not subject to any valuation. Therefore, under the Court Fee Act, the minimum valuation of the Suit for Declaration has been assessed as Rs. 200/- on which a court fee of Rs. 20/- is payable. This is when the plaintiff chooses to value the Suit for Rs. 200/- which also determines the forum where the Suit shall b....