TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The applicant, Nanjiah Setty, his only son, Gangadhara Setty, and the four sons through the latter ori?inally constituted a Hindu undivided family, which owned mainly movable properties in the shape of shares in the limited companies and an item of immovable property. By an instrument dated 1st March, 1956, the members of the family aforesaid declared their intention to remain divided in status from the joint family which was followed up by a registered deed of release dated 15th March, 1956, dividing the properties by metes and bounds. About 1st March, Gangadhara Setty's wife was enceinte. A male child called Lakshminarayanan was subsequently born to Gangadhara Setty on October 21, 1956. A copy of the instrument of declaration dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Granddaughters: Shyamala ... 37,725 Srivalli ... 37,725 75,450 6,79,050 8,30,289 The value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that conclusion were: (i) that though no doubt the new born child had a right to share in the family properties, that right could only be enforced against the properties allotted to his brothers and father on partition; (ii) that the settlements made on the 25th of October, 1957, were not in discharge of any liability but only a gift with consideration; and (?ii) that there was no reservations in the partition in March, 1956, about provision for Lakshminarayanan. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held: (i) that when, under Hindu law, a partition takes place the father and son were entitled to equal shares but, as between the members of the same branch, the division was per capita; (ii) that the division bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. On appeal before the Tribunal it was urged: (i) that there was only one partition between the assessee, his son and grandchildren and when a grandchild was born later, an adjustment of rights became necessary; (ii) that the assessee and Gangadhara Setty and grandsons all formed a coparcenary and there was a partition between all the members of the coparcenary; (iii) that Lakshminarayanan on coming to the family in 1956, got a right to a share in the family properties and that as this had been not provided for in the partition in March, 1956, a reopening of that partition was necessary and to avoid disputes, a settlement was arrived at between the members of the family by which the assessee gave properties of the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case. The question of law is: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment for the year 1958-59, of the allotment of the movable properties of the value of ₹ 1,46,500 to Lakshminarayanan under the registered family arrangement dated October 25, 1957, as a taxable gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, is valid in law? [After setting out the statement of case, HEGDE J. continued.] On the admitted facts, there is no dispute as regards the share given to the assessee at the partition, effected on March 15, 1956. That being so, minor Lakshminarayanan could have only claimed his share from the properties allotted to his father, brothers and sisters: see Singriah v. Ramanuja [1959] Mys. L.J. 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nition given in section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. From the definition given in the Act , it is clear that any transfer from one person to another made without consideration in money or money's worth amounts to a gift. There is hardly any doubt that though the transfer made by the assessee was without consideration in money or money's worth, he might have had other considerations in making the transfers. That is not relevant for the purpose of the Act . For the reasons mentioned above, our answer to the question referred to us is against the assessee. In other words, our answer is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transfer of the movable properties of the value of ₹ 1,46,500 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
