COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL versus BISHWANATH CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 08-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1096 
COMMISSLONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL 
v. 
BISHW ANATH CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS 
April 8, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA, P. N. SHINGHAL ANI> 
JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Wealth Tax Act, s. 3-Coparceners goi·erned by Dayabhaga School of Hindu 
Law-If could he assessed as Hindu Undivided Family. 
llindu Law-Coparcener under Dayabhaga School-If could be t1ss~sscd as 
Hindu Undivided Fan1ily. 
Rejecting the respondents' plea that as persons governed by the Dayabhaga 
School of Hindu Law they had held definite and determined shares in the 
properties inherited by them. ·from their father and were liable to separate 
assessment of wealth tax, the Wealtb. Tax Officer assessed them as a Hindu Un-
divided Family. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the 
properties should be taxed in the hands of the co-sharers ')eparately. On further 
appeaJ, the Appellate Tribunal held that notwithstanding that there was no 
unity of ownership amongst members governed by the Dayabhaga School of 
Hindu La\V in respect of family property and each member thereof lwd no definite 
share in it, such property, until partitioned, was assessable· to wealth tax in the 
hands of the Hindu Undivided Family. 
On reference, the High Court held 
in favour of the assessee. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Dayabhaga means partition of heritage. 
A Dayabhaga male's 
wife or sons or daughters have no ownership_ in his property during his lifetime. 
Ownership of wealth is ve:-;led in the heirs by the death of their father, \Vhen 
they become co-heirs and can clail}1 partition. The heritage of a Dayabhaga 
male does not become the ioint property of the heirs or of the joint family 
on the demise of the · Jast owner but becomes the fractional property of the 
heirs in well-defined shares. That is why partition in Dayabhaga is defined 
as an aCt of particularisin_g ownership. In Dayabhaga, the sons become tenants 
in common and not joint tenants in respect of the estate inherited by them 
from their father. 
While ~fitakshara is known as the SchooJ of "aggregate 
ownership", Dayabhaga is known as the school of "fractional ownership". The 
essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshara Law is unity of ownership; 
under the Dayabha_ga it is unity of possession, not unity of ownership at all. 
Under the Dayabha_ga school every .coparcener takes a definite share in the 
property and he is the owner of that share which is defined immediately the 
inheritance falls in. 
[l 099D-G; 11 OOB·H] 
Sreemutty Soorieemoney Dossee v. Denobundoo Mullick, 6 i\I.l.A. 526 at 
p. 553. 
G 
1. Hindu Law by Colebrooke p. 9, 2. Law relating 
to the 
Joint 
Hindu 
Family (Tagore Law Lectures) by Krishna Ka1nal Bhattacharya, p. 168 and 3. 
Principles of Hindu Law by l'rfulla (14th Edition) p. 348. Hindu Law & Usage, 
by Mayne, 11th Edition 364, approved. 
(i) Under s._ 3, the liability of wealth tax arises in respect of the net 
wealth of the assessee. 
The term "net wealth" means all the assets belonging 
to the assessee, on the valuation date. The expression "belong" accordin_g to the 
Oxford Dictionary means "to be the property or rightful possession of". [1098G-
H 
HJ 
(ii) The liability to wealth tax arises out of ownership of the asset and not 
otherwise. 
l\1ere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by the right to 
or ownership of property would, therefore, not bring the property within the 
I 
C.W.T. v. B. N. CHATTERJEE (Shinghal, J.) 
1097 
definition of "net wealth", for it would not then be the asset belonging to the 
A 
assessee. ll099C] 
In the instant case, the property in question \Vas the individual property 
of the father of the respondents and it devolved on the heirs according to the 
provisions 
of 
the 
Hindu 
Successio11 
Act, 
1956. 
The 
co-
parcenary had unity of possession but not unity of ownership on the 
property. 
Each coparceaer took a defined share in the property and was the 
owner of his share. 
Each such defined share thus belonged to the coparcener. 
It was his net wealth within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the Wealth Tax 
Act and was liable to \Vealth tax, as such, under s. 3. 
[1102C-D] 
Co1nniissioner of JVealth-tax, 1-Vest Bengal v. Gouri Shankar Bhar, (1972) 
1 
84 I.T.R. 699. explained. 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 26th April 1968 of the 
Calcutta High Court in Wealth Tax Matter No. 421 of 1964. 
S. T. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.