Back
1985 Supreme(Kar) 529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.S. Puttaswamy and S.A. Hakeem, JJ.
Satya Prema Manjunatha Gowda —Appellant
Vs.
Controller of Estate Duty —Respondent
Tax Referred Case No. 107 of 1978
Decided on : 11-09-1985
Advocate appeared:
Mr. S.A. Hakeem, for the Appellant
Mr. K. Srinivasan, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between survivorship and partition, and the impermissibility of interpreting legislation in a manner that would rewrite well-settled principles of law.
Headnote:
Estate Duty Act - Property Rights - Section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 - [Section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933] - The court discussed the interpretation of section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Act and its application to the property passing on the death of a coparcener. The court highlighted the distinction between survivorship and partition, emphasizing that the legal incidents of both are separate and distinct. The court held that the claim of the assessee was disallowed as the properties did not pass by survivorship, and the construction suggested by the appellant would amount to impermissible legislation in the guise of interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the estate passing on the death of a coparcener and the claim of the deceased's wife and unmarried daughter to a share in the property under the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties did not pass by survivorship, and the construction suggested by the appellant would amount to impermissible legislation in the guise of interpretation. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was disallowed.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and application of section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Act to the property passing on the death of a coparcener.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between survivorship and partition, holding that the legal incidents of both are separate and distinct. The court also highlighted that the construction suggested by the appellant would amount to impermissible legislation in the guise of interpretation.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to them in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.—In this reference made under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Central Act No. 34 of 1953) ("the Act"), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ("the Tribunal"), at instance of the accountable person ("the assessee") has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in 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 property of the deceased while he was alive ?"
2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts that are not in dispute.
3. One I. M. Manjunatha Gowda, son of I. S. Mallegowda of Agalkhan Estate, Chikkmagalur District, was a member of a joint Hindu Family (HUF) consisting of himself, his father and several other members. The Hindu undivided family owned extensive immovable properties. On May 4, 1955, there was a partition among the members of the said Hindu undivided family in which Manjunatha Gowda, who was then a minor, was allotted his share of movable and immovable properties of the Hindu undivided family.
4. On September 13, 1971, Manjunatha Gowda died leaving behind his wife, Smt. Satyaprema, and an unmarried daughter, Kumari Yeshaswini alias Sumana. In due course, Smt. Satyaprema filed an account of the estate passing on the death of Manjunatha Gowda under the Act before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore, in which, she, inter alia, claimed that the deceased had only 4/5ths share ill the properties of the Hindu undivided family and the unmarried daughter had 1/5th share by virtue of section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act No. 10 of 1933) ("the Mysore Act"), and the same had therefore to be excluded from levy of duty under the Act.
5. On August 29, 1973, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty completed the assessment in which he rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee and subjected the entire estate of the deceased to duty under the Act. Against the said order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the filed an appeal before the Appellate controller of Estate Duty Karnataka Charge, Bangalore ("the Appellate Controller"), who by his order dated May 7, 1976, allowed the same and accepted the said claim.
6. Aggrieved by the order made by the Appellate Controller, the Controller of Estate Duty in Karnataka, Bangalore ("the Revenue") filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which by its order dated August 24, 1977, allowed the same, reversed the order of the Appellate Controller and restored the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. Hence, this reference at the instance of the assessee.
7. Sri S.P. Bhat, learned counsel, has appeared for the assessee. Sri K. Srinivasan, senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, assisted by Sri H. Raghavendra Rao, has appeared for the Revenue. Both sides have relied on a number of rulings in support of their respective cases and we will refer to them at the appropriate stages.
8. That the question referred for our opinion is a question of law and is even an intricate question of law, can hardly be doubted amendment with itself has been repealed from March 16, 1985, by a later amendment with a saving clause and, therefore, the question will not hereafter arise except in pending proceedings from old Mysore area only. Even so, this court, on the very terms of the saving clause, is bound to examine and furnish its answer to the question referred by the Tribunal. A part from this, if the question is answered in favour of the assessee, that will result in substantial reduction of tax liability to her which also justifies this court to examine the question and furnish its answer. Sri Srinivasan, in our opinion, did not rightly urge to the contrary before us.
9. The Mysore Act was enacted in 1933 by His Highness the Maharaja
