LexCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL versus CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
118 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL A v. CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI & ORS. Ja~uary 19, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Section 3-Jain undivided family, whether Hindu Vndivided Fa111ily. The High Court held that the assessee, a Jain undivided family was not a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of section 3 of Wealth B Tax Act, 1957. According to· the High Court, in order to form a Hindu C undivided family its members must be Hindus; the assessee family being Jains were not Hindus and so its members could not form a Hindu un- divided family although it was "capable of forming a unit of very much of the same type and g_overned by the law applying to a Hindu undivided family". On the question whether the word 'Hindu' preceding the words undivided family signifies that the undivided family should be of th05e (i) who profess Hindu religion; or (ii) to whom Hindu Law applies; or, (iii) who though not professing Hindu religion have come to be regarded D as Hindu undivided family by judicial and legislative prac'ice, HELD : The expression Hindu undivided family includes 'Jain undivid- ed family'. For a Jong time Courts seem to have taken the view that Jains are Hindu dissenters. [.123 EJ · Blzagwandas Tejmal v. Rajmal, (1873) 10 Bbm. HCR. 241, Lala Moha- beer Pershad v. Musammut Kundar Koover, 8 Cal. W.Rep. 116 Civ. Rul and Sheokuarbai v. Jeoraj, [1921) P.C. 77, referred to. The above view has been challenged by Jain historians and writers and it has been maintained that Jains are quite distinct f:rom Hindus and have a separate code of law which unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the courts. [124 EJ Bobba/adi GatePP• v. Bobbaladi Eramma & Others, Al.R. 1927 Mad. · 228 and C.R. Jain, Jain Law, (1926) pp, 3-23, 21~258, referred to. E F But, the sugges'tion that Jain law which is found in the av&ilable books should still be applied and the error which bas crept in the matter of jains being governed by Hindu Law should be rectified cannot possibly be follow. ed partic;ularly in view of statutory enactment,s which in express tenns G lia\·e been made applicable to Jains. [125 BJ Panna Lal & Others v. Siiabai, I.L.R. 1954 Nagpur 30, Sheokuarbai v. Jeoraj, p92!) P.C. 77, referred to. Before the amendment and codification of major branches of Hindu law by the four statutes, i.e. the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, !956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship -~ct, i956, li- the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the undisputed position was that the Jains were governed by Hindu law modified by custom •Qd a Jain joint family was a Hindu joint family ·.with all the incidents COMMR. WEALTH-TAX v. CHAMPA (Grover,/.) ! 19 A attached to such a family under the Hindu Law. The legislative practice also was to generally treat Jains as included in the term 'Hindu' in various statutory enactments. Wherever Jains were mentioned in addition it was ex abundant/ cautela. The. new statutes did not change the situation. The· fallacy underlying the reasonini of the High Court is that the artificial field of application of the law m those statutes shows that Jainism is not treated even as a form or a development of Hinduism. Even if the reli- B gions are different, what is common is that all those who are to be govern- ed by the provisions of these enactments are included In the term 'Hindu'. They ai:e to be governed by the same rules relating to marriage, succession, minority, guardianship, adoption and maintenance as HindUs. The statutes thus accord legislative recognition to the fact that even though Jains may not be Hindus by religion they are to be governed by the same laws as the Hindus. The expression 'Jain undivided family' is not known to law. The Jains are governed by all the incidents relating to the Hindu joint family. C Hindu undivided family is a legal expression which has been employed in taxation· Jaws. It has a definite connotation and embodies the meaning ascribed to the expression 'Hindu Joint Family'. [127 E·128A) D E F G H Kamawali v. Digbijai, A.l.R. 1922 P.C. 14, Bachebi v. Makhan Lal & Another, I.LR. 3 All. SS Bhagwan Koer v. J. C. Bose, Ambalal v. Keshav .Bandhochand Gujar, I.LR, 1941 Bom. 2SO and Ka/~ani Vithal Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax, L.R. 64 I.A. 28, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1090 of 1971 arid 1686 ol 1968. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.