Some very inportant verdicts of the Supreme Court. C.N Arunachala case is very important one.

CASE DETAILS:  SUPREME COURT, Commissioner of Wealth Tax Kanpur Vs Chandersen, July 1986.

CASE RELATING TO:  Hindu Succession Act, 1956-ss. 4, 8 and 19-Property of father who dies intestate-Whether devolves on son, who separated by partition from his father, in individual capacity or Karta of his HUF. Property inherited under s 8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Whether HUF or individual property.

HELD THAT: Under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family. Section 8 lays down the scheme of succession to the property of a Hindu dying intestate. The Schedule classified the heirs on whom such property should devolve. Those specified in class I took simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs. A son's son was not mentioned as an heir under class I of the Schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the provision. The right of a son's son in his grandfather's property during the lifetime of his father which existed under the Hindu law as in force before the Act, was not saved expressly by the Act, and therefore, the earlier interpretation of Hindu law giving a right by birth in such property "ceased to have effect". So construed, s. 8 of the Act should be taken as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of a Hindu dying intestate. Therefore, the property which devolved on a Hindu on the death of his father intestate after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1356, did not constitute HUF property consisting of his own branch including his sons.

CASE DETAILS:  SUPREME COURT, C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, 1953

CASE RELATING TO:  Self acquired property of father when given to son, whether it is ancestral property in the hands of son or it is treated as son’s self acquired property.

HELD THAT: Important lines in the judgement “Property gifted by a father to his son could not become ancestral property in the hands of the son simply by reason of the fact that he got it from his father. The father is quite competent when he makes a gift, to provide expressly either that the donee would take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the benefit of his branch of the family and if there are express provisions to that effect in the deed of gift or will, the interest which the son would take in such property would depend on the terms of the grant. If there are no clear words describing the kind of interest which the donee is to take, the question would be one of construction and the court would have to collect the intention of the donor from the language of the document taken along with the surrounding circumstances in accordance with the established canons of construction. The material question in such cases would be whether the grantor really wanted to make a gift of the properties to his son or the apparent gift was only an integral part of a scheme to partition the same.” "In view of the settled law that a Mitakshara father has absolute right of disposition over his self-acquired property to which no exception can be taken by his male descendants, it is in our opinion not possible to hold that such property bequeathed or gifted to a son must necessarily, and under all circumstances, rank as ancestral property in the hands of the donee in which his sons would acquire co-ordinate interest. This extreme view, which is supposed to be laid down in the Calcutta case(1) referred to above, is sought to be supported on a two-fold ground. The first ground is the well known doctrine of equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property which is enunciated by Mitakshara on the authority of Yagnavalkya. The other ground put forward is that the definition of "self- acquisition" as given by Mitakshara does not and cannot comprehend a gift of this character and consequently such gift cannot but be partible property as between the donee and his sons." "It is obvious, however, that the son can assert this equal right with the father only when the grandfather's property has devolved upon his father and has become ancestral property in his hands. The property of the grandfather can normally vest in the father as ancestral property if and when the father inherits such property on the death of the grandfather or receives it by partition, made by the Grandfather himself during his lifetime. On both these occasions the grand father's property comes to the father by virtue of the latter's legal right as a son or descendant of the former and consequently it becomes ancestral property in his hands. But when the father obtains the grandfather's property by way of gift, he receives it not because he is a son or has any legal right to such property but because his father chose to bestow a favour on him which he could have bestowed on any other person as well. The interest which he takes in such property must depend upon the will of the grantor."

CASE DETAILS:  SUPREME COURT, MAKHAN SINGH (D) by Lrs Vs KULWANT SINGH, 30 March, 2007

CASE RELATING TO:  Who has the onus of proving the existence of Joint Hindu Family & nucleus of Joint Family Income with which the property was purchased? Sec 8 of Hindu Succession Act

IMPORTANT FINDINGS / DECISIONS “As observed in K.V.Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer & Ors. (1964) 7 SCR 490 as there was no presumption in law that a property purchased in the name of a member of a family had ipso-facto the character of Joint Hindu Family property unless it could be shown that the family possessed a nucleus for the purchase of the same.” “in the light of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Ors. vs. Chander Sen & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 567 in which it has been held that there could be no presumption that if the property purchased by a father fell to his son by inheritance it was deemed to be in his position as a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family.” “The High Court has also rightly observed that there was no presumption that the property owned by the members of the Joint Hindu Family could a fortiori be deemed to be of the same character and to prove such a status it had to be established by the propounder that a nucleus of Joint Hindu Family income was available and that the said property had been purchased from the said nucleus and that the burden to prove such a situation lay on the party, who so asserted it. The ratio of K.V.Narayanaswami Iyer case (supra ) is thus clearly applicable to the facts of the case.” “In this connection, reference must be made to Chander Sen's case (supra ) wherein it has been held that a son who inherits his father's assets under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does so in his individual capacity and not as a Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. It is the admitted case before us that the 11 marlas had been purchased by Dula Singh from his income as an employee of the Railways and it was therefore his self- acquired property. Such a property falling to his sons by succession could not be said to be the property of the Joint Hindu Family.”