Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Now what does " throwing into the common stock " imply ? A Hindu joint family is not a creature of contract. The existence of a coparcenary is absolutely necessary before a coparcener can throw into a common stock his self-acquired properties. The doctrine " throwing into the common stock ", in short, blending, thus postulates that the owner of the separate property is a coparcener and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. A separate property can be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into common stock with the intention of abandoning, waiving or surrendering his separate right or exclusive right therein. Such impression is shown by a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family rejecting or objecting to it. It would thus be seen that there are only two essential requisites for conversion of separate property into joint family property I (1) the existence of a coparcenary, and (2) a deliberate intention formed by the coparcener owning the separate property to treat the same as joint family property. For the expression of such intention of the coparcener concerned no particular form or formality is required. This question has been considered in a number of decided cases both of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and reference may be made to Goli Eswariah v. CGT [1970] 76 ITR 675 (SC), Alladi Kuppuswami v. CEO [1970] 76 ITR 500 (Mad) [FB], CGT v. P. Rangasami Naidu, another Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, reported at page 315 in the same volume. There is another decision of that High Court in A. N. K. Rajawani Ammal v. CED [1972] 84 ITR 790.

20. In Rajamani Ammal, it was submitted on behalf of the revenue that Goli Eswariah [1970] 76 ITR 675 (SC) was a case arising under the Gift-tax Act in which the word " disposition " came up for consideration and that the meaning given therein to this expression could not be extended to the word " disposition " occurring in Section 27(1). This contention was repelled and it was observed, referring to the fact that in Goli Eswariah's case [1970] 76 ITR 675 (SC), the decision in P. Rangasami Naidu [1970] 76 ITR 315 (Mad) [FB] was approved (p. 796):