Holding

The estate was not acquired by survivorship; hence Section 8(1)(d) does not confer any share on the widow or daughter.

Summary

Manjunatha Gowda, a coparcener in a Hindu joint family, received a 4/5 share of family property after a partition in 1965. He died in 1971, and his widow Smt. Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda and their unmarried daughter claimed a share of the estate under Section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, seeking exemption from estate duty. The Estate Duty Officer initially excluded their share, but the Tribunal reversed that decision, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined whether the property passed to the deceased by survivorship, which would trigger Section 8(1)(d). It held that the property was acquired by partition, not by survivorship, and therefore the clause did not apply. Consequently, the widow and daughter were not entitled to a share, and the High Court’s order was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the estate left by Manjunatha Gowda was obtained by survivorship within the meaning of Section 8(1)(d) of the Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, thereby entitling his widow and unmarried daughter to a share.

Subjects

Hindu joint familycoparcenarysurvivorshipestate dutywomen’s rightspartitioninheritancetax exemption

Judgment

A SMT. SATHYAPREMA MANJUNATHA GOWDA
v.
THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARNATAKA

APRIL 3, 1997

8 IK. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

Hindu Law Womens Rights Act, 1933.

Mysore Act No. VIII of 1933: Section S(l)(d).

c Estate Duty Act, 1953 : Sections 5, 6 and 64(1).

Joint Family Prope1ty-Single Co-parcene,-.../'artitio11 amongst himself,
his father and other members-Death of single coparcener-!mposition of
Estate Duty-Exclusio11 sought by widow of her and her daughters' share-Es-
D tate Duty Officer excluding the share from taxable estate-But on appeal it
was rel'~-·sed-High Cowt held the view taken by Tribunal was co1Tect--:"'p-
peal before Supreme Cowt-Held on death of Co-parce11er his widow a11d
daughter were not entitled to share in the Estate-Claim of execlusion of their
share from Estate Duty rightly rejected by High Cowt-Deceased Co-parcener
received the prope1ty ai the pmtition without their being any other copar-
E ce11er-It was an individual prope1ty a11d, therefore, he had not received it by
survivorship but by virtue of his status bei11g a coparcener of the Hindu Joint
f amity alo11g with his father and with brothers. Under these circumstances,
family memben· enumerated under section 8( l)(d) are not entitled to a share
in the estate left by the deceased.
F
Nagendra Prasad & Anr. v. Kempananjamma, AIR (1968) SC 209,
held inapplicable.

Hindu Law-Hindu Undivided f amity co-parcena1y-Distinction be-
tween.
G
Words and Phrases :

'Survive', 'Successor' and 'Survivorship'-Meaning of-Hindu Law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3021 of
H 1986.
586
S.M. GOWDAv. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY 587

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.86 of the Karnataka A
High Court in S.C.L.A.P. No. 5 of 1986.

Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant.

K.N. Shukla Rajeev Sharma and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal is by certificate granted by the Division Bench of Kar-
nataka High Court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The
facts are very simple and lie in a narrow compass.
c
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 D
daughter has 1/5th share in it and his widow, the appellant also has a share
in that property.

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 E
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.
F
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".
G
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 :

"l(a) At partition of joint family property between a person and H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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 of the
classes of females enumerated in the above sub-section."
D 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 readir!g
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
E Section 8.

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

The question, therefore, is: whether the appellant, Smt. Manjunath
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
G 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
H is the normal condition of Hindu Society is ordinarily joint not only in
S.M. GOWDAv. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY
.. 589

estate but in food and worship; therefore, not only the concerns of the joint A
family, but whatever relates to their commenality and their religious duties
and observances are regulated by the members or by the manager to whom
they have, expressly or by implication, delegated the task of regulation. The
joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint properties
is only an adjunct of the joint family and is not necessary for its constitution. B
Nor is it necessary that all the members possess right .or status even though
the property ·of the family is called joint family property.

On the other hand, coparcenary is a narrower body than a joint
family and consists of only those persons who have taken by birth an
interest in the property of the holder for the time being and who can C
enforce a partition whenever they like. It commences with a common
ancestor and includes a holder of joint property and only those males in
his male line who are not removed from him by more than three degrees.
Thus while a son, a grandson or a great-grandson is a coparcener with the
holder of the property, the great-great-grandson cannot be a coparcener D
with him, because he is removed by more than three degrees from the
holder.

Hindu Undivided Family is a concept and coparcenary is not one of
the same under the Hindu law. But for the purposes of taxation under the E
Act, as in other tax measures, like the Income-tax Act, they are treated as
one and the same. The question, therefore, is: whether Manjunatha Gowda,
when he had the property at the partition between the coparceners,
received it by survivorship? The primary meaning of the word 'survive' is
to live beyond the life or extent of, or to outlive; but it also has a secondary
meaning namely, to live after, and as used in the phrase, "If either of my F
said sons should die without leaving a child which shall survive him." The
word "successor" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (sixth edition)
at page 1431 as under :

"One that succeeds or follows; one who takes the place that another G
has left, and sustains the like part or character; one who takes the
place of another by succession. One who has been appointed or
elected to hold an office after the term of the present incumbent.

Term with reference to corporations, generally means another
corporation which, through amalgamation, consolidation, or other H
,...;- --
)

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A legal succession, becmp.es invested with rights and assumes bur-
dens of first corporation."

The word 'survive' has been defined in the above said dictionary
thus:

B To continue to live or exist beyond the life, or existence of; to live
through in spite of; live on after passing through; to remain alive;
exist in force or operation beyond any period or event specified."

The word 'Survivorship' has been defined in the same dictionary
thus:
c
"The living of one of two or more persons after the death of the
other or others. Survivorship is where a person becomes entitled
to property by reason of his having survived another person who
had an interest in it. A feature of joint tenancy and tenancy by the
entirety, whereby the surviving co-owner takes the entire interest
D
in preference to heirs or devisees of the deceased co-owner."

The word 'survivor' has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'The
Law Lexicon' (1987 edition), thus :

"The longer liver of two joint-tenants or of any two persons joined
E
in the right of a thing. He that remaineth alive, after others be
dead etc.

Where a trust deed conveys certain property to certain trustees,
and to the survivor of them, or the assigns of such survivor, the
F term "the survivors or his assigns necessarily imports the power to
transfer by the survivor."

The book further defines the word 'survivorship' as under :

"The living of one of two or more persons after the death of the
G other or others. In relation to property the condition that exists
where a person becomes entitled to property by reason of his
having survived another person who had an interest in it.

"Title by survivorship" exists only when the estate is held in joint
H ownership (as) among Hindu Coparceners governed by the Mitak-
S.M. GOWDAv. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY 591

shara law." A

The word 'survivor' usually applies to the longest lives of two or
more partners or trustees, and has been applied in some cases to the
longest liver or joint tenants and legatees, and to others having a joint
interest in any property. B

Here, we are concerned with Manjunatha Gowda who had ob-
tained property at a partition with coparceners. Survivorship, there-
fore, is the living of one of two or more persons after the death of the
others having interest to succeed in the property by succession. The C
shares in the coparcenary property changes with death or birth of
other coparceners. However, in the case of survivorship it is not of
the same incidence. He received the property at the partition without
their being any other coparcener. It is an individual property and,
therefore, he did not receive it by survivorship but by virtue of his D
status being a coparcener of the Hindu Joint family along with his
father and with brothers.

Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the High
Court that since it is by partition, not by survivorship, clause ( d) of E
sub-section (1) of Section 8 does not get attracted, is not correct. No
doubt, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Nagendra Prasad & Anr. v. Kempa11a11jamma, AIR (1968) SC 209 which
was also considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
This Court therein has explained that the object of Section 8(1)(d) is F
to give a right to claim a share in the joint family property to all
females referred to in clauses (a) to (c) thereof, had on one footing
and Section 8(1)( d) on the different footing. Merely because partition
by one of the coparceners under clauses (a) to (c) is a condition for
a class of family members entitled to a share in the property, it does
not apply to a case where class of family members are entitled under G
clause 8(1)(d) since it stands on altogether on a different footing and,
therefore, partition is not a condition precedent for claiming a share
by a class of family members enumerated in Section 8(1)(a) of the Act.
But that principle has no bearing to the facts in this case for the
reason that the property held was not received by survivorship. H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Under these circumstances, family members enumerated under sec-
tion 8(1)(d) are not entitled to a share in the estate left by the deceased.
Thus we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the High Court
warranting interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
B
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.