TMI Blog1969 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ... 8,501 5. Ground rent ... 1,270 6. Cash allowance attached to Saranjam ... 1,024 7. Income from sales of grass Rs. 16,683 Less Land revenue Rs. 1,500 " Expenses Rs. 804 ... 14,379 ---------- 73,273 ---------- Under the present reference there is no dispute as to the amount of the salary received by the assessee, but the dispute is with reference to the remaining items of his income Nos. 2 to 7 mentioned above. The short question that has been posed for our decision is whether this income in the hands of the assessee was income of a Hindu undivided family or was liable to taxation in the hands of the assessee as an individual. The assessee claimed that the income was being received by him as the karta of a Hindu undivided family while the department claimed that the entire income in dispute received by the assessee was received by him as an individual. It was their case that the property belonging to the assessee was a saranjam and all the other items of income were appurtenant to the saraniam, that the saranjam was impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture and therefore there is no question of treating the income in the hands of the assessee as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o existence. Certain extracts from old compilations were relied upon in this respect. Lastly, it was urged that when the succession took place at the time of the death of the grandfather of the assessee, the grandson adopted by him was not given any share but only his natural son was allowed to succeed. If the adoption was not recognised it was an indication that there was no Hindu undivided family. Before we set forth the contentions before us it is necessary to refer to the history of this family and of the grant of the saranjam to the ancestors of the assessee. The different branches of the Patwardhan family, to which family the assessee belonged, are shown by the following genealogical tree : Haribhat Bhuva Patwardhan (died 1750) Balambhat Trimbak Ramchandra (Kurundwad Br.) Govindrao (Tasgaon Br.) (Saranjam) (died 1771) Nilkanth Parasrambhau Ramchandra Gopalrao Wamanrao Pandurangrao Gangadharrao (died 1771) (died 1775) (died (1777) (Saranjam) Hariharrao Chintamanrao (died 1782) (Saranjam) (died 1851) The original grant of the saranjam was made in the year 1764 to Govindrao, son of Haribhat by the Peshwa, Madhavrao, The saranjam territory at that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtition deed was entered into with the consent of the then Peshwa, Bajirao. It was as a result of this partition that the Miraj branch and the Sangli branch of the Patwardhan family came to be separated. Gangadharrao came into Miraj and the assessee's family continued in Sangli. This was the first stage of division of the saranjam. Durging his lifetime Gangadharrao of Miraj was not satisfied with this partition and did not ratify it but after his death the agreement came to be ratified by his successors at Miraj due to the intervention of a representative of the then British political agent, Mr. Morris, in 1850. The two branches of Sangli and of Miraj finally agreed to the original arbitration brought about by Parasrambhau. This was the second stage in the division of the saranjam. Thereafter it appears that each branch continued in the enjoyment and possession of their share of the saranjam and the Tribunal has noted that from time to time several small States came into existence also by further partition such as Kurundwad, Tasgaon, Miraj Jr., Miraj Sr., Jamkhandi, etc. We will presently mention some of the references that have been given to us and which have also been refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was and this saranjam has been treated as partible at its inception and also later by custom and usage." The Tribunal has held : In the face of this documentary evidence, much of which is really contemporary evidence, it is impossible to accept the department's submission that property held by the respondent by reason of their grant was impartible." It seems to us that, having regard to the material which has been placed before us, these findings were correct findings. In the first place, the original saranjam was granted in the name of Govind Haribhat but two other persons, i.e., his brother's sons, Parasrambhau, son of Ramchandra of the Tasgaon branch, and Nilkant, son of Trimbak of the Kurundwad branch, shared in it. When it was originally granted it was in respect of 8,000 swars with all the appurtenances, but Govindrao was only granted the saranjam for the maintenance of 4,6000 swars and Nilkant in respect of 1,000 swars and Parasrambhau 2,400 swars. In other words, at the vere inception of the grant, there were sharers along with the original saranjamdars. That does not show that the intention was to grant an impartible saranjam. The subsequent history of this saranja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equal to 2,600 horsemen and Chintamanrao a portion equal it 2,000 horsemen. Thus the portion of the saranjam originally granted to Govindrao of 4,600 horsemen was further divided. The saranjam originally granted to Govindrao on Govindrao's death passed to Wamanrao and after Wamanrao's death passed to Chintamanrao. There was, therefore, the second partition of the saranjam and this again is referred to in West's account at pages 46 to 55 where the learned author gives a long history of the negotiations that took place and the details of that claim. Ultimately the potitical agent appointed one Mr. Morris to intervene and bring about a settlement and after protracted negotiations what was proposed by Mr. Morris and accepted by the British Government is stated as follows at pages 84-86 : "To obviate these ill effects he suggested that Government before sanctioning a partition should reserve to itself such a portion as would be sufficient to cover the expenses of the contingent which the saranjam was bound to furnish. In the event of this expedient not meeting with the approbation of Government, he proposed, as an alternative, that the portion of the saranjam to be set apart for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt, normally, a saranjam is not partitioned it has been held in a number of cases that where members of the family had treated saranjams as partible over a long period of years and had dealt with them as such in effecting partitions of the entire family estate which consisted both of incomes and saranjams, the court is justified in concluding that the saranjam was either originally partible or has become so by family disputes. This was laid down in an early case of this court in Madhavrao Manohar v. Atmaram Keshav. In the present case we have already shown that even at the time of the original grant it was never the intention of the grantor, the then Peshwa, to make the saran jam impartible. Whatever indication is furnished by the old records shows that from the start there were sharers and the saranjam was intended to be impartible. Mr. Joshi contended that it must be held that the three sharers who were the original grantees of the saranjam held each share as a saranjam themselves and that in third hands that share was impartible. That is not, however, the case which has been put forward on behalf of the department at any stage nor do the facts establish such a case. When th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insisted that at every succession a fresh satiad should be obtained by the successor to the saranjam and this is clear from article 2 of the engagement between the East India Company and Chintamanrao entered into in 1820 quoted in paragraph 3 of the Tribunal's order and extracted from Capt. Burke's book, Notes on Sangli State. In this letter of engagement Chintamanrao finally accepted the partition arrived at through the good offices of Parasrambhau. Article 2, as then agreed to by Chintamanrao, was as follows : "As long as you act with fidelity and attachment, the Jahagir in your possession and in the possession of the sirdars of your family shall be continued without any interruption or question. This is mentioned in the 5th paragraph of the agreement entered into at Pandharpur, and it is accordingly now confirmed. On this subject you will receive a sanad issued by the Right Honourable the Governor-General of India. It will hereafter be necessary for your descendants to obtain new sanads from generation to generation, on which occasions applications should be made to the Government which will be pleased to issued a sanad, and to continue the jahagir without levying a nazur." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
