N.D. Hanumatharayappa vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.—The question referred to us under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee reads thus :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the applicant was rightly taken as Hindu undivided family (specified) ?"

The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which consisted of the karta, his wife, five daughters and three sons. Two unmarried sons had died earlier and their share of the joint family property passed on to their mother, Jayamma, absolutely. She was being assessed separately for the purpose of wealth-tax in respect of those properties which devolved on her on the death of the two unmarried sons. She had executed a release deed dated July 26, 1972, stating that she was giving up her rights in the family properties. The relevant sentences in the release deed read thus :

"That in consideration of the releasor taking for herself the schedule properties towards her share in the share of the deceased coparceners to which she has succeeded as legal heir, the releasor hereby releases in favour of the releasee and the joint family of the releasee all her right, title, and interest in the Hindu joint family properties.

The releasor hereby acknowledges and agrees that from this day onwards she will have no right, title and interest in other joint family properties of the releases as a legal heir of her deceased sons."

The contention of the assessee was that since she had released her rights in the family properties, she had ceased to be a member of the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, the assesses-Hindu undivided family could not be considered as one which has a member whose net wealth exceeded Rs. 1 lakh because, other than Jayamma, no other member of the Hindu undivided family had net wealth exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. Under Part I of the Schedule I prescribing the rates of wealth tax, in the case of every Hindu undivided family which has at least one member whose net wealth assessable for the assessment year exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, a higher rate of tax is attracted. The contention of the Revenue was that Jayamma being a member of the family and having been assessed on a net wealth of more than Rs. 1 lakh, the assessee (Hindu undivided family) was taxable at the higher rate of tax as a specified Hindu undivided family.

The assessee contended that since Jayamma has released her rights in the joint family properties as stated in the release deed, she ceased to be a member of the joint family.

It is not possible to accept this contention. A female member of a Hindu family is not a coparcener; she has no right to seek partition; her membership of the joint family arise by virtue of her marriage with a male member of the family or being a daughter born to a male member of the family. As a daughter, she continues to be a member of the father''s family till her marriage.

Mr.Sarangan, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that Jayamma, in the instant case, has released all her rights in the joint family properties which would take away her rights to claim maintenance also; the status of a female as a member of the family depended upon the right to claim maintenance or marriage expenses (at the case may be), and when no such right survives, the status as a member of the family also vanishes. This contention of learned counsel is based on the assumption that the membership of the family depends upon the existence of a right to maintenance; we find no such principle stated in Hindu law. The position is that, if a female is a member of a joint family, as incidental thereto, she has the right to be maintained and, in the case of unmarried daughters, a claim to marriage expenses out of joint family properties (Vide : Mayne''s Hindu Law, 12th Edn., page 147, regarding marriage expenses).

A female is a member of a joint family, not because of any inherent right over the joint family properties, but by virtue of a particular relation ship with the male members of the family.

In view of the above, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. The answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the affirmative and against the assessee.