COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. THIAGARAJAN S S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises a question of Hindu law. One Srinivasa Mudaliar and his son Thiagarajan originally constituted a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The family owned considerable moveable and immoveable properties. There was a partition between the father and the son on the 1st April 1951. Thereafter each of them was separately assessed to income-tax as "individuals" in respect of their income from the divided assets, received by them on partition. Srinivasa Mudaliar died on the 14th December 1953. He was survived by his widow, the mother of Thiagarajan, and his son Thiagarajan. In respect of the assets of Srinivasa Mudaliar, which he had obtained at the partiton referred to Thiagarajan and his mother claimed joint ownership. They applied for Succession Certificate to realise amounts invested by way of fixed deposits and for collection of dividends due from shares of limited companies.

(2.) WE are unable to agree with the view of the Tribunal that on the facts and circumstances of this case Thiagarajan and his mother constitute a Hindu undivided family. Thiagarajan became divided from his father on and from the 1st April 1951. The joint family of the father and the son was disrupted on that. date. When the father died on the 14th December 1953 there was of course no joint family between him and the son, Thiagarajan. It cannot be said that Srinivasa Mudaliar and his wife constituted members of a joint family. If a son had been born to Srinivasa Mudaliar after the partition, the after-born son and father would have constituted a joint family. Even assuming that Srinivasa Mudaliar was the head of a potential joint family it is inconceivable how after his death, his widow and the divided son, Thiagaraian. could themselves combine to form a joint family. A Hindu joint family or coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law. and it cannot be created or constituted by an agreement between the parties.