TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the son of the deceased, the principal value of the assets disclosed included the value of one-third share in agricultural land measuring 9.2 acres situated near the municipal terminal, Meerut. In order to justify the claim that the deceased had only one-third share in the agricultural holding aforesaid, in the assessment proceedings, it was claimed that the said agricultural land was ancestral property which had devolved on the deceased from his father, Ram Swarup, who had died before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, came into being. In support of this claim, copies of khatauni for 1305 and 1352 Fasli were filed. Further, the land being ancestral and Rakesh Kumar Gupta (accountable person) being the son of the deceased, having been born on June 12, 1950, i.e., before the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the deceased's share in the said agricultural holding was 50.% at the time the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced. There is no indication about the nature of the holding before the enforcement of the said Act. It was also claimed that, as per the family settlement for the agricultural holding in question, vide application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for partition by the son of the deceased on March 14, 1973, in respect of the agricultural holdings in question, which ultimately resulted in the passing of a decree, the deceased had only a one-third share in the agricultural holdings as also in the kothi, well, trees, standing crops, etc. This view of the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) was upheld in second appeal at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that severance in the status of a joint family took place on March 14, 1973; when a coparcener of the family instituted the suit for partition of his share giving out his intention to become separate, unequivocally and unambiguously. For the view the Tribunal took, it relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma, AIR 1958 SC 1042, and on a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Prithiviraj Pailo v. Kautuka Babi, AIR 1970 Orissa 4. The Tribunal also rejected the alternate case of the Revenue based on section 9 of the Estate Duty Act by holding that there being a partition in the joint family property, the wife of the karta as a member of a Hindu undivided family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the sweeping changes brought about in the land tenure system by the said Act. Proceeding along, learned counsel emphasised that the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act contains its own provisions regarding inheritance and transfer and under that Act, joint family cannot hold any agricultural land to which the provisions of the said Act apply nor can any member of the family claim any beneficial interest in such land by virtue of being a member of the joint family. According to learned counsel, the agricultural holdings in question were the individual property of the deceased as his name alone had been recorded in the land revenue records. In the light of the contentions advanced before us, it was urged that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in accepting the claim of partition on the assumption that the disputed agricultural land was property to which the notions of Hindu law or personal law of a tenure-holder applied. It is settled by now that, with the enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, all agricultural land vested in the State and new rights including Bhumidhari rights were conferred in favour of persons holding such land. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue Decision 283, held that where the land in question is joint and ancestral Khudkasht land of the father and the father and the sons were alive at the time of vesting, the other coparceners of the family have a share in such holdings. A similar view has also been expressed by a learned single Judge in Chetanya Raisingh v. Second Additional Civil Judge, [1977] AWC 289. The decisions in the cases of Mahendra Singh [1967] ALJ 8 (All) and Ram Chandra [1978] Revenue Decision 1 (All) came to be considered before another Division Bench in CED v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, [1980] UPTC 45, where the distinction between the two cases was pointed out by observing that the decision in the case of Mahendra Singh [1967] ALJ 8 (All) was not concerned with Khudkasht land, whereas Ram Chandra's case [1978] Revenue Decision 1 (All), specifically dealt with Khudkasht land and Sir land. Thus, whether the notions of Hindu law would apply to an agricultural holding (Bhumidhari land) or not, where the Bhumidhari rights were acquired as a consequence of the enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, would depend upon the nature of the holding before the enforcement of the Zamindari A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
