COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. THAKUR BHAIRON SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Court's order dt. 16th Dec., 1968, the Tribunal was required under S. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), to state a case to this Court in respect of the assessee's assessment for the years 1957 -58 to 1964 -65, and refer the following question of law:

(2.) WE might notice a few facts for answering the question aforesaid which covers all the assessments' under examination. Thakur Bhairon Singh was a scheduled jagirdar in the erstwhile State of jodhpur of the jagir of Barkana in District Pali. He received certain compensation consequent to the abolition of the jagir under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter called "the Abolition Act"), and he included the amount of the compensation in his return of wealth claiming that it was an asset of his HUF consisting of himself and his sons. The WTO by separate orders for each year but all dt. 31st March, 1965, rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee having succeeded to the jagir on the rule of primogeniture prior to the year 1940 he was not governed by the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 or Hindu law but was governed by the personal law prevalent in the Jodhpur State and, as such, his status was that of an individual. Dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeals before the AAC, who, however, found that the assessee was the holder of an impartible estate which he had inherited from his father. On the principle laid down in CIT vs. Krishna Kishore (1941) 9 ITR 695 (PC), Shiba Prasad Singh vs. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi, AIR 1932 PC 216 and Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram vs. Pushpavathi Visweswar, AIR 1964 SC 118, the AAC upheld the assessee's contention that the estate was owned by the HUF of which the assessee was the Karta. Against the order of the AAC dt. 25th April, 1966, the Department took up an appeal before the Tribunal who, on the principles indicated in Mayne's Hindu law and on the authorities of Baijnath Prasad Singh vs. Tej Bali Singh, AIR 1921 PC 62, Collector of Gorakhpur vs. Ram Sunder Mal, AIR 1934 PC 157 and Raja Pushpavathi's case (supra), upheld the decision of the Asstt. CIT. The Department came up to this Court and prayed for a direction for referring the aforesaid question for answer. We have heard Mr. S. C. Bhandari for the Department. No body has appeared on behalf of the assessee.

(3.) THE Marwar Act was intended to consolidate and amend the laws relating to tenancies and other matters connected therewith in Marwar, i.e., the former jodhpur State. The assessee had already succeeded in 1940, and the jagir was abolished in 1952, and we have our great doubts whether the Marwar Act of 1949 as such would apply for ascertaining its characteristics. Assuming for the sake of argument that the characteristics of a jagir in the erstwhile jodhpur State were those which are enunciated in the Marwar Act, let us examine some of its provisions. Sec. 169 provides that the ownership of all lands vest in His Highness and all jagirs shall be deemed to be held as grants from His Highness. Sec. 170 lays down that all grants shall be held by the original grantee or his successors during His Highness pleasure. Sec. 171 refers to the scheduled jagirs and the assessee's jagir was one of them. Sec. 172 lays down that subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, succession to all estates called "grants" shall be in accordance with the personal law to which the deceased landlord was subject. S. 173 speaks of escheat of the estate of an heirless grantee and S. 174 provides that when the grant is resumed under S. 173, the widow or dependant of the deceased grantee were to be granted maintenance allowance. S. 175 provides that a grant may at any time be resumed by His Highness if it was held by a person who was not entitled to hold it as an heir. S. 176 lays down that "no person shall be entitled to succeed to a grant as heir whether by adoption or otherwise: