ORDER

This appeal is by certificate granted by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The facts are very simple and lie in a narrow compass.

2. The appellant is the widow of Manjunatha Gowda. Manjunatha Gowda was a member of joint family consisting of Mallegowda, his father and other members of the Hindu Undivided Family. On May 4, 1965, on a partition amongst themselves, he got 4/5th share in the Hindu Undivided Family properties. On his demise, it is claimed that his unmarried daughter has 1/5th share in it and his widow, the appellant also has a share in that property.

3. He died on August 18, 1971 and when estate duty was sought to be imposed, the appellant claimed exclusion of her share and that of her daughter in the property under Section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women s Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act No. VIII of 1933), (for short, the Act ). The Estate Duty Officer excluded her share from taxable estate. But, on appeal, it was reversed, On a reference, the High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Thus this appeal.

4. The question on which reference was sought by the assessee is as under: "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that neither the unmarried daughter nor the wife of the deceased had any interest in the above property of the deceased while he was alive".

5. Thus the only question for consideration is: whether the Estate left by Manjunatha Gowda was obtained by survivorship applying Section 8(1)(d) of the Act? Section 8 reads as under :

"1(a) At a partition of joint family property between a person and his son or sons, his mother, his unmarried daughters and the widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to a share with them.

(b) At a partition of joint family property among brothers, their mother, their unmarried sisters and widows and unmarried daughters of their predeceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them.

(c) Sub Sections (a) and (b) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a partition among other coparceners in a joint family.

(d) Where joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the rights to share to the classes of females enumerated in the above sub-section."

6. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 do not apply to the facts in this case. Only clause (d) applies to the facts in this case. A reading of it would indicate that when joint family property passes to a single coparcener, by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the rights of the share of the classes of females enumerated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8.

7. Classes of females have been mentioned in Clauses (a), namely, his mother, his unmarried daughters, widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issues; they are all entitled to a share with them.

8. The question, therefore, is: whether the appellant, Smt. Manjunatha Gowda, has obtained this estate left by her husband by survivorship? The Hindu joint family consists of male members descending lineally from a common male ancestor, together with their mother, wives or widows and unmarried daughters with their mother, wives or widows and unmarried daughters bound together by the fundamental principle of sapindaship or family relationship which is the essence and distinguishing feature of the institution. This body is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by act of parties save in so far that by adoption or marriage a stranger may be affiliated as a member thereof. An undivided family which is the normal condition of Hindu Society is ordinarily joint not only in estate but food and worship; therefore, not only the concerns of the joint family, but whatever relates to their commena