VEDATHANNI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first question referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner is:

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. THE Vadapathimangalam family in East Tanjore District consisted of two brothers up to 1912, Somasundara and Ramalinga. Ramalinga died in December, 1912, leaving a widow. She is the assessee in this case and the reference to us was made at her instance. Somasundara died in January, 1925, leaving two widows. In July, 1925, an adoption was made to him. THE adopted son, a minor, is now the sole male member of the family and holds the estate. Ramalinga s widow sued him for maintenance with arrears. THE Subordinate Judge of Negapatam gave her a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per annum and for arrears amounting to Rs. 69,000. THEre was an appeal to the High Court. On appeal, the decree was confirmed by our brothers Curgenven and Sundaram Chetty, JJ. We are informed that leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been granted, but it is not necessary that this reference should wait till the Privy Council appeal is disposed of.

(3.) ANOTHER contention referred to before us by the learned advocate is that the sole male member now holding the joint family property would himself be exempt from any taxation. I am unable to agree with this suggestion. He cannot be said to receive the income of the estate as member of an undivided family. He receives his income by reason of business or investment or from some other source. He does not receive the income from any other person by reason of his being a member of a joint family. The language of the section is strictly applicable only to widows of deceased coparceners, to disqualified heirs and maidens in the family receiving maintenance. This contention therefore is not tenable. I say nothing in this case about super-tax from a Hindu joint family.