ROWJI SOJPAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of those cases which goes to show that the legislature in enacting a taxing staute does not -- possibly cannot -- take into consideration all eventualities and all contingencies. The assessee was joint with this brother prior of 1932. On the 19th of April 1932 there was a partition and the propety in question came to his share on that partition. At the date of the partition the assessee had sons and therefore on the partition taking place the property became joint family property as between the assessee and his sons. There was a partition between the assessee and his sons on the nth of June 1944 and on that partition again the property came to the share of the as-cessee. On the 22nd of August 1947 the assessee sold the property and made admittedly a capital gain of Rs. 97,251/ -. The Department seeks, to bring this capital gain to tax.

(2.) IT is not disputed by the assessee that he is liable to pay the tax, unless his case falls within the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 12b; and that proviso runs as follows:

(3.) NOW it is been settled Jaw as to the rights-of coparceners in a joint Hindu family that it cannot be predicated of any property of any joint Hindu family that a particular share in it belongs to a particular coparcener. Hindu law recognises both community of interest and unity of possession in the joint family properties between all the members of the family. In other words, all coparceners are owners of the property and all coparceners are entitled to possession of the property. Could it, therefore, be said that during this period, when the Joint family was the owner of this property, the assessee was in possession of it? It is clear that the expression "possessed by the assessee" used in the second proviso means "possessed juridically". The possession contem-plated is a juridical possession and not actual possession. The juridical possession' of this pro-perty was not with the assessee, but with the assessee along with his sons who were the coparcenens and who constituted the Joint and undivided Hindu family at the material time. Now Mr. Palkhivala's argument is that there is no warrant for reading into this Section the qualification that the possession contemplated by this section is an exclusive possession. Mr. Palkbivalii says that his client was in possession of this property even though he may have been in possession jointly with others. Now it would not be correct to say that a person, owns a property or is in possession of a property unless the ownership or the possession was exclusive. If the ownership or possession was not exclusive, then the ownership or possession would have to be qualified or limited by appropriate words. In not so qualifying or limiting the expression "possession" it is clear that the Legislature contemplated the exclusive possession on the part of the assessee or his parent. Mr. Palkhivala drew our attention to the provision of Hindu law where a coparcenary is constituted by a father and his sons, and he emphasized the fact that in the case of such a coparcenary the father is entitled to possession of the property. It is perfectly true 'that, when you have a father constituting a joint family with his sons, he has a right to fie In possession of joint family property and exclude the possession of the sons and the sons cannot have any grievance against any such exclusion so long as the joint family continues. But the possession here is not juridical, but actual possession. Although the father may be in actual possession, the Juridical possession is still with the father and the sons jointly; it is not solely" with the father. If our right in the view that we take -- and that aspect of the case is not challenged by Mr. Palkhivala --that the possession that we are dealing with here is Juridical and not actual possession, then we Jail to see what difference it would make to this argument if the father is in actual possession, but not in juridical possession, of the whole of the property.