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

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 03-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
SMT. SATHYAPREMA MANJUNATHA GOWDA 
v. 
THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARNATAKA 
APRIL 3, 1997 
IK. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Hindu Law Womens Rights Act, 1933. 
Mysore Act No. VIII of 1933: Section S(l)(d). 
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 
G 
Nagendra Prasad & Anr. v. Kempananjamma, AIR (1968) SC 209, 
held inapplicable. 
Hindu Law-Hindu Undivided f amity co-parcena1y-Distinction be-
tween. 
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. 
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. 
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 
B 
c 
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. 
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". 
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 : 
F 
G 
"l(a) At partition of joint family property between a person and H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
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 of the 
classes of females enumerated in the above sub-section." 
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) o

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