Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The question is whether the tax due under the provisions of the (Kerala) Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) in respect of income derived by a sthanamdar from stha-nam property is, after his death, leviable from the person or persons on whom the property has devolved. The tax, of nearly Rs. 85,000, assessed in this case was in respect of income derived during the period, 1-11-1958 to 31-3-1958, from the sthanam property of the Zamorin of Calicut by the then Zamorin, Sreemanavikraman Raja. On his death in May 1958, after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the next Zamorin, Kunhammaman Raja succeeded to the title, but the properly devolved on the 692 members of the Zamorin's family and on Sreemanavikraman Raja's heirs in separate shares in accordance with Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act. However, it would appear that, by reason of Section 5 (2) of Kcrala Act 28 of 1958, Kunhanimaman Raja, and, after him, the succeeding Zamo-rins, assumed management of the entire property until the present petitioners took over as receivers of Court appointed in a partition suit between the several sharers. It was Kunhammaman Raja that was assessed to the tax--that was done under Section 24 (2) of the Act--and he paid a sum of Rs. 18,000 and odd towards the tax while his successor Zamorin, P. C. Cheria Kunhunni Raja, paid Rs. 20,000 and odd. For the balance of the tax, and for a penalty of Rs. 5000 imposed on P. C. Cheria Kunhunni Raja, demands have been made on the petilioners by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (the respondent herein) by his orders Exts. P-l, P-3 and P-5, and these orders the petitioners seek to quash.

2. It is important to remember that, before the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, the estate of a sthanamdar in the sthanam property was akin to a Hindu widow's estate--see Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080, and whatever might have been his limited powers of disposal during his lifetime, his estate determined completely with his death and no interest of his survived that event. The property, in the hands of the succeeding sthanamdar, was no more the estate of the deceased sthanamdar than property in the hands of a remainderman is the estate of the deceased life-estate holder. But, by reason of Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession! Act, when a sthanamdar dies after the commencement of that Act, the sthanam property held by him devolves on the members of the sthani family and on his own heirs as if the property had been divided per capita immediately before his death among himself and the other members of the sthani family. In the share falling to him in that notional division, and devolving on bis heirs, he must be regarded as having had a full estate, and that share, along with any other separate property he might have owned, would constitute his estate in the hands of his legal representatives. But, the shares devolving on the members of the sthani family, are in no sense the estate of the deceased sthanamdar. He never at any time had any interest in that that survived his death, and the Hindu Succession Act did not give him any.

On the principle underlying Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Legislature could only have intended that the persons on whom the property devolved should take it subject to the liability to pay all the sthanam debts to the extent of the property. Therefore, the words, "sthanam property" occurring in the Sub-section must be read as meaning the assets of the sthanam subject to the liabilities thereof. And, since the sthanam proper is now in the hands of the petitioners on behalf of the persons on whom it has devolved, the petitioners must pay the tax assessed on and due from the sthanam from out of, and to the extent of the property.

It is said that Sri Manavikraman Raja had no estate in the stanom properties after his death and that nothing passed on his death except his share in the properties upon the notional division. I think, the Full Bench decision in 1967 Ker LT 148 = (AIR 1967 Ker 210) (FB) proceeds on the assumption that what passed on the death of the stanomdar was the entire property of the stanom. M. S. Menon, C. J., said:

"Leach, M.P., said in Parr v. Parr, (1833) 2 LJCh 167, that the word "devolve" means to pass from a person dying to a person living and that "the etymology of the word shows its meaning". We entertain no doubt that it is in the sense indicated by the Master of the Rolls that the word "devolved" is used in the first portion of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 when it says that the sthauam property held by a Sthanamdar shall devolve upon the members of the family to which the Sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the Sthanamdar. In other words, the words "as if the sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the Sthanamdar" do not attenuate the sthanam property that passes on the death of a Sthanamdar to a per capita share therein as contended by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 276 of 1965 and by the respondents in Writ Appeals Nos. 119, 174, 179 and 338 of 1965."