CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. RANI BAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, referring for our answer the following questions of law :

(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal has correctly interpreted Section 39{1) of the E.D. Act and held that on the death of a sole coparcener it must be deemed that there was a partition of a HUF and that the wife was entitled to have a share equal to that of her son ?

(3.) THE wide definition of " property " in the Explanation has not to be narrowly construed with a gloss of Hindu law over it. THE Act has an overriding effect and any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law on matters dealt with by the Act cease to have effect after its commencement. This is specifically provided in Section 4. THE effect of Section 14 is that if a female Hindu was possessed of any right which could be described as property in the generic sense, the same became vested in her as a full owner in spite of the act that the right was not recognised as property under the strict Hindu law. Section 14 is retrospective and it is immaterial for the application of this principle whether such a right was acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. This is how Section 14 was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Munnalal v. Rajkumar, AIR 1962 SC 1493. In that case, it was held that a share allotted to a Hindu female in a preliminary decree passed before the commencement of the Act was property possessed by her although there was no division by metes and bounds and that this property vested in her absolutely after the commencement of the Act. THE Supreme Court expressly laid down that the rule of law applied by the Privy Council in Pratapmull's case, AIR 1936 PC 20, that till actual division of the share declared in her favour by a preliminary decree a Hindu wife or mother was not recognised as owner could not be applied after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act.