R. Rajathy Ammal vs Commissioner of Wealth-tax

V. Ramaswami, J.—The following two questions have been referred in pursuance of the directions of this court :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the applicant as an individual in respect of the property inherited

by her husband was valid in law after the adoption of the minor child ?

Whether the adoption of the son does not alter the character of the properties from that of individual property to that of joint family property ?

One Ramalingam Chettiar died intestate in October, 1962, leaving behind him his widow Rajathy Ammal, the assessee in this case, as his sole

heir. On December 14, 1969, the widow adopted a minor child, Ashok. The properties in question originally belonged to the deceased,

Ramalingam Chettiar, he having obtained the same under a family partition. For the Assessment year 1970-71, the assessee submitted a return

under the Wealth-tax Act and claimed the properties as joint family properties in view of the adoption of the minor child, Ashok. The Income Tax

Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that on the death of Ramalingam Chettiar, his widow inherited all his

properties and that by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was holding the properties as an absolute owner. They also

held that since the adoption took place subsequent to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adoption does to relate back to the

date of death of the adoptive father and that it will not have the effect of divesting the properties inherited by the widow. In that view, it was held

that the properties are to be treated as the individual properties of the assessee and the assessment was made accordingly. It may be mentioned

that an alternative argument was advanced on behalf of the assessee to the effect that by reason of the return submitted by the widow for the

assessment year 1970-71 in the status of a Hindu undivided family, the widow should be deemed to have thrown the properties into the hotchpot

and, therefore, the wealth-tax assessment should be in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal rejected this contention on the ground

that the return was submitted in June, 1970, while the valuation date under consideration was December 31, 1969, and, therefore, there could not

have been any throwing into the hotchpot with reference to the assessment year 1970-71. The Tribunal also noted that the law does not recognise

any throwing of property into the hotchpot by a Hindu woman. We are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in this approach on both the

questions. In fact, it is unarguable and covered by at least two judgments of the Supreme Court.

In the decision in Punithavalli Ammal Vs. Minor Ramalingam and Another, , the Supreme Court had held after referring to the relative provisions

of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, that the full ownership conferred on a Hindu female u/s

14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is not defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force. The

Supreme Court further observed that the rights conferred on a Hindu female u/s 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act are not restricted or limited by

any rule of Hindu law, and that provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules, as interpreted by the courts, that on adoption

by; a Hindu widow, the adopted son acquired all the rights of an aurasa son and those rights related back to the date of death of the adoptive

father, and they cannot be applied to an adoption made subsequent to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

In an earlier decision in Sawan Ram and Others Vs. Kala Wanti and Others, , the Supreme Court has adopted this principle even to a case

where there is a sole surviving coparcener holding all the joint family properties and the adoption was made by the widow of a deceased

coparcener. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee in Smt. Sitabai and Another Vs. Ramchandra, , had not dealt with this

question of divesting of the properties. That decision related only to the relationship of an adopted son to the other members of the Hindu

undivided family. The decision was to effect that the person adopted by the widow becomes a son not only of the widow but also of the deceased

husband and, therefore, if the husband had a daughter, she will become the sister of the adopted son. The decision does not deal with the

inheritance relating to the deceased adoptive father when an adoption was made by the widow, nor to its relating back, nor the consequences of

adoption relating to the properties already vested in a widow u/s 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. As already stated, the other two decisions are

clear on the question to the effect that it will not dives the properties already vested in the widow.

On the question whether there is any throwing of the properties by the widow into the hotchpot of the joint family properties, we agree with the

Tribunal that the contention of the assessee will have to be rejected. Firstly, as held by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi Vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax, New Delhi, , a female member of the joint family could not blend her separate property, even if she were an absolute owner thereof,

with the joint family property, and that the right to blend was limited only to coparceners. She could achieve the purpose of making it Hindu

undivided family property by gifting it to the Hindu undivided family or allowing the Hindu undivided family to purchase it from her. In this case, no

such throwing into the hotchpot can be accepted. Secondly, the question could not also arise for the assessment year 1970-71, since the return

itself was filed in June 1970, and the only action of filing the return was claimed to be the throwing of the properties into the hotchpot. The relevant

date for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act is December 31, 1969, with reference to the assessment year 1970-71, and as on the relevant date,

the properties had not been thrown into the hotchpot, that question also could not arise.

In these circumstances, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs.

Counsel''s fee Rs. 500.