V. VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 26-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
82 7 
V. VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
February 26, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMl AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Expenditure Tax Act 
(29 of 1957), '· 3(1)-Applicable to Hindu 
f1u11ilies governed hy Mafumakkattayam [.aw hut not to. Mappilla fatnilies 
governed by the Marumakkattayam law-If violative of Ari. 14 Constitu-
tion of India, 1950. 
The mcn1bcrs of a 
Hindu 
undivided 
family 
governed 
by 
the 
Al11ru11iakkattaya111 law, while 'remaining joint, had entered into an agree-
ment for separate enjoyment of certain properties of the family by differ-
ent members as permitted by their customary law. 
For the assessment 
vear 1958-59 its karta, in the status of a Hindu undivided family, filed a 
return under the Expenditure-tax Act. 1957, of the expenditure incurred 
by him in respect of the property under his 'personal control and direct 
enjoyment'. 
l'hc Expenditure-tax Officer. added the expenditure incurred 
by the other n1cmbers of the family in 'respect of properties set apart for 
their use and enjoyment as the expenditure of the llindu undivided family 
under s. 3(1). 
On the question, \Vhether s. 3 is violative of Art. 14 because, a Hindu 
undivided family governed by the Mc·runinkkattayani law has to pay the 
tax at a higher rate by reason of -the unit of taxation under the section 
being the Hindu undivided family there is an amalgamation of the ex~ 
penditurc of all the members of the family, whe'reas, a Mappilla family 
may pay tax at a tower rate since the members of a Mappilla undivided 
family governed by the MarunU1kkattayan1 law arc Jiable to be taxed as 
'individuals' under the section, 
HELD : The equal protection clause of the Constitution allows a large 
play to legislative discretion in the matter of classification. The power to 
cJac;sifv may be exercised so as to adjust the system of taxation in all 
prope'r and reasonable ways : the Legislature may select persons, proper-
ties, transactions and objects, and apply different methods and even rates 
of tax, if the Legislature does so reasonably and if the classification is 
rational. 
A taxing statute may contravene Art. 14 if it seeks to impose 
on the sanie class of property,_ persons, transactions or occupations simi· 
Iarly situate, an incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality. 
but, a taxing statute is not exposed to attack on the ground of disc'rimina· 
tion merely because different rates of taxation are prescribed for differe1tt 
categories of persons, transactions. occupations or objects. 
The courts 
\\ill not strike down an Act as denying the equal protection of laws me'rely 
because other objects ~ould have been, but are not, taxed by the Legisla-
ture. [832 H; 833 A-F] 
· 
Though the law applicable to Hindu undivided families govorned by 
the MarumakkattayGm law and to the Mappilla tarwad in North Malabar 
has the same characteristics in two respect"'. namely, (a) tracing descent 
through females: and (b) community of interest Rnd unity of posc;ession 
in respect of the family property, the laws applicable to them in other 
respects differ widely. Initially a common system of law relating to family 
property o'f the tarwad was applicable to Hindus and Mappillas governed 
8 28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
by the Maru1nakkattuya1n law, but since the enactment of the Madras 
Marumakkattayam Act (22 of 1933) and 
other enactments governing 
Hindus, and the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act (17 of 1939) govern-
ing the Mappillas, there are few points of similarity in property matters 
in the tarwads. The application of the Islamic laws of marriage and inheri-
tance to the Mappillas has led to greater cleavage. 
The community of 
Mappillas governed by Marumakkattayam law is a small community, res-
tricted only to the Northern area of Malabar district and is dwindling 
because of the impact of the Muslim law of inhe'ritance applicable to 
shares obtained on partition. Parliament has been accustomed t.o treating 
a Hindu undivided family as a unit of taxation and to enacting tax laws 
making a distinction between a Hindu undivided family consisting of 
Hindus and undivided families of Mappillas. 
The long course of legis-
lative history in matters of taxing income. wealth, gifts, capital gains and 
business profits indicates that the Legislature tegarded undivided Hindu 
families as a class to which the legislation may appropriately be applied. 
Even though the basic scheme 

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