http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. SATHYAPREMA MANJUNATHA GOWDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  O R D E R      This appeal  is by certificate granted bythe Division Bench of  Karnataka High  courtunder  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 amember of jointfamily consisting of Mallegowda, his father and  other  members  of  the  Hindu Undivided Family.  On may  4, 1965,  ona  partition amongst themselves, he got 4/5th share in the Hindu Undivided Family properties. Onhis demise, it is claimed that his unmarried daughter has  1/5th share in itand hiswidow, the appellant also  has a share in that property.      Hedied  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  HinduLaw Women’s Rights Act,1933 (Mysore Act No. VIII of  1933), (for  short, the ‘Act’). The Estate Duty officer excluded her sharefrom taxable estate. But, on appeal,it was reversed. on a reference, the high Courtheld that the  view taken  by the  Tribunal is correct. Thusthis appeal.      The   question onwhich reference was sought  by the assessee is  asunder  :  "whether  inthe  facts  and the circumstances of  the case,  the  Tribunal  was correct  in holdingthat  neither the unmarried daughter nor the wife of the deceased  had any  interestin the above property of the deceased while he was alive"      Thus the  only question  for consideration is: whether the  Estate   left  byManjunatha  Gowda  wasobtained  by survivorship applying  Section 8(1)(d) of the Act? Section 8 reads as under:      "1(a)  At a  partition  of  joint      family property  between  a  person      and his  son or  sons, his mother,      his  unmarred   daughtersand  the      widows and unmarried daughters  of      his predeceased  undividedsons and      brothers  who  have  leftno  male      issue shall  be entitled to a share

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    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  leftno  male      issue shall  be  entitle  to  share      with them.      (c)  Sub Sections (a) and (b) shall      also apply mutatis  mutatis  to  a      partition among  other  coparceners      ina jointfamily.      (d)  Where jointfamilyproperty      passes toa single  coparcener  by      survivorship,  it shallso  pass      subject to the rights  toshare of      the classes  of females  enumerated      inthe above sub-section."      Clauses (a)  to (c)  of sub-section (1) ofSection8 do not apply to the facts in this case. Only clause (d) applies to thefacts in  this case.  Areadingof it would indicate that  when   joint  family   property  passes  to  a  single coparcener, by survivorship, itshall so pass subject to the rights of  the share ofthe classes of females enumerated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8.      Classes of females have  been mentioned in Clause(a), namely,his  mother, his  unmarried  daughters, widows and unmarried daughters  ofhis  predeceased undivided  sons and brothers  whohave  left   is not   necessary   for its constitution. Nor  is it  necessary  that  allthe  members possessright  or status  even though  the property  of the family is called joint family property.      Onthe  other hand, coparcenary isa narrower bodythan a joint familyand  consists of only those persons whohave taken by birth an interest in the property of the holder fro the time being and who can enforce a partition wheneverthey like. It  commences with  a common  ancestor and  includes a holder of  joint property  and only  those males in hismale 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 theholder of  the property,  the great- great-grandson cannot be coparcencer with him, because he is removedby morethan three degrees fromthe holder.      Hindu Undivided  Family isa concept and coparcenary is not one of the same under  the  Hindu Law.  But  for the purposes  of  taxationunder  the  Act,  as  in  other tax measures, likethe Income-taxAct, they are treated as one and thesame. The question, therefore is: whether Manjunatha Gowda, when he had the propertyat the partition between the coparceners received itby survivorship? The primary meaning if theword ‘survive’is to live beyond the life or extent of, or to outlive; but it also has secondary meaning namely, to live after,and  asused inthe phase, "If either of any said sons  should die  without leavinga child which shall survivehim."  The word ‘successor’  has  been defined  in Black’sLaw  Dictionary(sixthedition)  at  page  1431  as under.      "One thatsucceeds or follows; one      who takesthe place  that another      has left,and  sustains  the  like      part or  character; one  who  takes      the place of another by succession.      One  whohas  been  appointed  or      elected tohold anoffice after the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    term of the present incumbent.   Term with reference    to      corporations,    generally   means      another corporation  which, through      amalgamation,   consolidation,   or      other  legal   succession, becomes      invested with  rights  and assumes      burdens offirst corporation."      The word  ‘survive’ has  been defined in the abovesaid dictionary thus:      "To  continue   to live  or  exist      beyond the life, or  existence of;      tolive  through in  spiteof; live      onafter passing through; to remain      alive; exist  in force or operation      beyond   any    period   or   event      specified."      The word  ‘Survivorship’ has  beendefined in thesame dictionary thus:      "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. Afeatureof joint      tenancy   and    tenancyby   the      entirely, whereby the surviving co-      owner takes  the entire interest in      preferenceto  heirs or devisees of      the deceased co-owner."      The word  ‘survivor’ has  been defined  inP. Ramanatha Aiyar’s‘The Law Lexicon’ (1987edition), thus:      "The longer  liver of  two  joint-      tenants,  or  of  any  two persons      joined inthe right of a thing. He      that remaineth  alive, after others      bedead etc.      Where a  trust deed conveys certain      property to  certain trustees,  and      tothe  survivor of  them, or  the      assigns of such survivor,the term      "the  survivor   or  hisassigns"      necessarily imports  the  power  to      transfer by the survivor."      The book  further definesthe word  ‘survivorship’  as under:      "The living  of one  of two or more      persons  after  the  death of  the      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      ownership  (as)  among   Hindu      Coparceners   governed    by    the      Mitaksharalaw."      The word  ‘survivor’ usually  applies  tothe  longest lives of  two or  more partners or trustees,  and hasbeen appliedin  some cases to the longest liver or joint tenants and legatees,  and to  others having a joint interest in any property.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    Here, we  are concerned  with Manjunatha  Gowda who had obtained  property   at a   partition withcoparceners. Survivorship, therefore, is theliving of one of two ormore person after  the death of the othershavinginterest  to succeedin  theproperty  by succession.  The shares  in the coparcenery property  changes with  death or  birth of other coparceners. However,  in the case of survivorship it si not of thesame incidence. He received  the  property  at the partition without theirbeing any othercoparcener. It is an individual property and, therefore, he did not receive it by survivorship but  by virtue of his status beinga coparcener of theHindu Joint  family along  withhis  father andwith brothers.      Under these  circumstances, the  conclusion reached  by the High Court that it si by partition,not by survivorship, clause (d)  of sub-section  (1)of  Section 8  does not get attracted. No  doubt, the  learned counsel  relied upon the judgment of  this Court in Nagendra  Prasad &Anr. v. Kem Panarijamma [AIR  1966 SC  209]which was also considered by the High  Courtin the impugnedjudgment. This Court therein has explained  that the objectof  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 family class ofpersonsentitled to a share in the property, it does not apply  to a  case where family class of persons entitled underclause 8(1)(d) since itstands on altogether on a  differentfooting and, therefore,  partition  is not condition precedent  for claiming  a share  bya  class  of family person  enumerated in Section 8(1)(a) ofthe Act. But that principle has not bearing to the facts in this case for the reason  that the  propertyheld  was  notreceived  by survivorship.      Under these  circumstances, family members  enumerated under section  8(1)(d) are  notentitled  to ashare in the estate left  bythe  deceased.Thus  we  do  not  find any illegality in  the view taken by  the High Court warranting interference.      The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.