R RAJATHY AMMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following two questions have been referred inpursuance of the directions of this court. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the applicant as an individual in respect of the property inherited by her from her husband was valid in law after the adoption ofthe minor child "

(2.) WHETHER the adoption of the son does not alter the character ofthe properties from that of individual property to that of joint family property "" * One Ramalingam Chettiar died intestate in October, 1962, leaving behind him his widow Rajathy Ammal, the assessee in this case, as his sole heir. On December 14, 1969, the widow adopted a minor child, Ashok. The properties in question originally belonged to the deceased, Ramalingam chettiar, he having obtained the same under a family partition. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee submitted a return under the Wealth-tax act and claimed the properties is joint family properties in view of the adoption of the minor child, Ashok. The Income-tax. Officer, the Appellate assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that on the death of Ramalingam chettiar, his widow inherited will his properties and that by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was holding the properties is an absolute owner. They also held that since the adoption took place subsequent to the hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, the adoption does not relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father and that it will not have the effect of divesting the properties inherited by the widow. In that view, it was held that the properties are to be treated as the individual properties of the assessee and the assessment was made accordingly. It may be mentioned that an alternative argument was advanced on behalf of the assessee to the effect that by reason of the return submitted by the widow for the assessment year 1970-71 in the status of a Hindu undivided family, the widow should be deemed to have thrown the properties into the hotchpotch and, therefore, the wealth-tax assessment should be in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal rejected this contention on the ground that the return was submitted in June, 1970, while the valuation date under consideration was December 31, 1969, and, therefore, there could not have been any throwing into the hotchpotch with reference to the, assessment year 1970-71. The Tribunal also noted that the law does not recognise any throwing of property into the hotchpotch by a Hindu woman. We are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in this approach on both the questions. In fact, it is unarguable and covered by at least two judgments of the Supreme Courtin the decision in Punithavalli Ammal v. Ramalingam, 1970 air (SC) 1730, 1970 (1) SCC 570, 1970 (3) SCR 894, 1970 (2) MLJ 70 the Supreme court had held after referring to the relative provisions of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, that the full ownership conferred on a Hindu female under section 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act is not defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force. The Supreme Court further observed that the rights conferred on a Hindu female under section 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law, and that provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules, is interpreted by courts, that on adoption by a Hindu widow, the adopted son acquired all the rights of an aurasa son and those rights related back to the date of death of the adoptive father, and they cannot be applied to an adoption made subsequent to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In an earlier decision in Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti, 1967 air (SC) 1761, 1967 (3) SCR 687, the Supreme Court has adopted this principle even to a case where there is a sole surviving coparcener holding all the joint family properties and the adoption was made by the widow of a deceased coparcener. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in sitabai v. Ramchandra, 1969 (2) SCC 544, 1970 (2) SCR 1, 1970 AIR (SC) 343, 1969 mahlj 926, 1969 MPLJ 868, 1969 Mhlj 926, had not dealt with this question of divesting of the properties. That decision related only to the relationship of an adopted son to the other members of the Hindu undivided family. The decision was to the effect that the person adopted by the widow becomes a son not only of the widow but also of the deceased husband and, therefore, if the husband had a daughter, she will become the sister of the adopted son. The decision does not deal with the inheritance relating to the deceased adoptive father when an adoption was made by the widow, nor to its relating back, nor the consequences of adoption relating to the properties already vested in a widow under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. As already stated, the other two decisions are clear on the question to the effect that it will not divest the properties already vested in the widowon the question whether there is any throwing of the properties by the widow into the hotchpotch of the joint family properties, we agree with the Tribunal that the contention of the assessee will have to be rejected. Firstly, as held by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT1978 (1) SCR 329, 1977 AIR (SC) 2230, 1977 (4) SCC 184, 1977 UJ 580, 1977 (109) ITR 730, 1977 HLR 598, 1977 CTR (SC) 348, 1977 Taxlr 1396, a female member of the joint family could not blend her separate property, even if she were an absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property, and that the right to blend was limited only to coparceners. She could achieve the purpose of making it Hindu undivided family property by gifting it to the Hindu undivided family or allowing the Hindu undivided family to purchase it from her. In this case, no such throwing into the hotchpotch can be accepted. Secondly, the question could not also arise for the assessment year 1970-71, since the return itself was filed in June, 1970, and the only action of filing the return was claimed to be the throwing of the properties into the hotchpotch. The relevant date for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act is December 31, 1969, with reference to the assessment year 1970-71, and as on the relevant date, the properties had not been thrown into the hotchpotch, that question also could not arise. In these circumstances, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.