1978 (4) TMI 98 - SC - Income Tax

Whether suit properties belonged to the joint family that there was no prior partition and that the plaintiff Is entitled to a 7/24th share? Held that - We see no justification for limiting the plaintiff s share to 1/24th by ignoring the 1/4th share which she would have obtained had there been partition during her husband s lifetime between him and his two sons. We think that in overlooking that 1/4th share one unwittingly permits one s imagination to boggle under the oppression of the reality that there was in fact no partition between the plaintiff s husband and his sons. Whether a partition had actually taken place between the plaintiff s husband and his sons is beside the point for the purposes of Expln. 1. That Explanation compels the assumption of a fiction that in fact a partition of the property had taken place the point of time of the partition being the one immediately before the death of the person in whose property the heirs claim a share - we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit properties belonged to the joint family or were self-acquisitions of Khandappa.
2. Whether there was a prior partition of the suit properties.
3. The correct share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit properties belonged to the joint family or were self-acquisitions of Khandappa:
The trial court rejected the contention of defendant 1, who claimed that the properties were Khandappa's self-acquisitions and not joint family properties. The court found that the properties belonged to the joint family, making the plaintiff indisputably entitled to a share in them. This finding was upheld by the High Court and was not seriously disputed in the appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. Whether there was a prior partition of the suit properties:
Defendant 1 alleged that Khandappa had partitioned the properties between himself and his two sons in December 1952 and December 1954, and had given directions for the disposal of his reserved share in a family arrangement dated March 31, 1955. However, the trial court found no evidence of such partition, and this finding was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court also upheld this view, confirming that there was no prior partition of the suit properties.

3. The correct share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court, following the Bombay High Court's earlier judgment in Shiramabai v. Kalgonda Bhimgonda, limited the plaintiff's share to 1/24th, refusing to add 1/4th and 1/24th together. However, the High Court, relying on its later judgment in Rangubai v. Laxman Lalji Patil, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 7/24ths share by adding both shares.

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 6 and its Explanation 1, which creates a legal fiction that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener is deemed to be the share that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death. The Court emphasized that this fiction must be given its full effect, meaning that the share of the deceased coparcener must be ascertained as if a partition had occurred, and this share must be added to the share that the widow would receive upon his death.

The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's share should be calculated by adding the share she would have received if a partition had occurred during her husband's lifetime (1/4th) to the share she would receive in her husband's interest upon his death (1/24th), resulting in a total share of 7/24ths. The Court supported this interpretation, noting that it aligns with the legislative intent to enhance the property rights of female heirs and rectify historical injustices.

The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs and endorsing the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a 7/24ths share in the joint family properties. This interpretation promotes the legislative goal of providing equal property rights to Hindu women.