FAMILY LAW - II

In the partial fulfillment for the requirement of the project 2.0 on the subject of Family
Law - II of B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Fourth trimester.

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS – COMMISSIONER OF

WEALTH TAX v. R. SRIDHARAN 1976 LR

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Associate Prof. Kavita Singh Samarth Mehrotra

2019BALLB10

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Table of Contents………………………………………….2
2. Certificate………………………………………………….3
3. Acknowledgement……………………...............................4
4. Table of Cases……….........................................................5
5. Table of Statutes……………………………….…………6
6. Review of Literature...........................................................7
7. Introduction……………………………………………….8
 Procedural History……………….………………..9
 Research Objectives……………………………….9
 Statement of problem………………………………9
 Hypothesis…………………………………………..9
 Research Questions…………………………………10
8. Facts……………………………………………..……..….10

9. Material Facts…………………………….………..…..…11

10. Principle…………………………………………………11

11. Issues…………………………………….………………12

12. Arguments on behalf of Petitioner………….…………12

13. Arguments on Behalf of Respondent…………………..12

14. Decision………………………………………………….13

15. Rationale…………………………………………………13

16. Critical Analysis………………………………………13-14

17. Conclusion & Suggestion…………………………......14

2|Page
18. Bibliography…………………………………………….………15

3|Page
 CERTIFICATE

This is to be certified that this project work titled “CASE ANALYSIS – COMMISSIONER OF
WEALTH TAX v. R. SRIDHARAN” has been made by Samarth Mehrotra who is a student,
currently pursuing BA.LL.B (Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. As a part of
curriculum of the subject of Family Law - II in fourth trimester, this project works has not been
plagiarised from any author or website and neither has been given in any journal, magazine, or to
any other source for publication.

Signature of the Student : ...............................

Signature of the Research Supervisor : ..............................

4|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project work titled as ‘CASE ANALYSIS – COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX v. R.

SRIDHARAN’ has been made after putting a lot of effort and dedication, We would like to thank
our subject teacher Associate Prof. Kavita Singh, who through his years of experience in his field
of subject, made a great impact in delivering quality lecture on this topic and his constant
guidance, helped a lot in the making of this project and creating the final output. I would also
like to thank my friends who helped in making a quality discussion about the related topic.
Finally I would like thank the Library of NLIU, which provided a number of books and
resources for the said work.

Samarth Mehrotra

5|Page
 TABLE OF CASES
1. Gowli Buddanna v. Commisssioner of Income tax AIR 1966 SC 1523, ¶11.

2. Shashtri Yagnapurushdasji & Ors. v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya & Anr. 1966 AIR 1119,
¶25.

3. Bhagwan Koer v. J.C. Bose & Ors. 70 Ind Cas 463 a, ¶19.

4. Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar v. Koney Narayana Rao & Ors. AIR 1953 SC 433, ¶20.

5. Ananthaya v. Vishnu (1894) ILR 17 Mad 160, ¶25.

TABLE OF STATUTES

1. Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. Special Marriage Act, 1954.
3. The Constitution of India, 1950.
4. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

DICTIONARIES
1. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition.

6|Page
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Cases Materials on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Commentary) – This

commentary deals with the landmark cases and materials dealing with the
interpretation of the provisions of the HMA, 1955.

 M.L. Bhargava, Commentary on Indian Succession Act, 1925, Edition

1st, Kamala Publishers, 2016 – The commentary provides with a lucid
explanation regarding the provisions and sections of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925.

 Lawmann, Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Lawmann) Paperback, 2017 –

This piece of statute deals with the sections of the SMA. Also, the book
provides us with the landmark judgements dealing with each section of the
SMA.

7|Page
 INTRODUCTION
In India, there are many codifying Acts such as the Hindu Marriage Act1, the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act2, and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 19563. These all Acts
explain and discuss the concept of the term ‘Hindu’ in a manner that the word ‘Hindu’ has
undergone a change and it has been provided and presented in a wider interpretation. Further, in
some or the other manner, there is some effect and impact of the provisions of these Acts on the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The provisions of a particular Act are applicable as per
the facts, circumstances and the interpretation of the provisions of that particular Act.

In the present case study, it can be easily studied and analysed the impact and effect of Section
214 of the Special Marriage Act on the succession to the property of a person belonging to the
Hindu Undivided Family or Hindu Joint Family. Section 215 is read as follows: “Succession to
property of parties married under Act – Notwithstanding any restrictions contained in the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, with respect to its application to members of certain communities,
succession to the property of any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act and to the
property of the issue of such marriage shall be regulated by the provisions of the said Act and
for the purposes of this Act shall have effect as if Chapter III of Part V had been omitted
thereform.”

The main thing to be brought into consideration while applying all the Acts related to the word
“Hindu” is that the person should be a Hindu at first place. A person would be governed under
Hindu ordinary law only when that individual will fulfill the requirements of being a Hindu. In
the present case, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 declared to be not applicable to the person
because the person was found to be Hindu by the court. Thus, the court clearly made this
observation that if an individual is a Hindu, he/she will be governed by the Hindu ordinary laws
in matters of succession to the property of a person.

1
The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
2
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
3
The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
4
Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
5
Id.

8|Page
  PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The respondent appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the respondent was not
satisfied with the judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal that Nicholas is not a Hindu. So, he can’t
have his property share in the property belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family. Thus,
succession to the property of a person will be governed by The Indian Succession Act, 1925. The
Appellate tribunal reaffirmed the decision of the lower tribunal. To this, the respondent
challenged the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the High Court of Madras. The High Court
favored the respondent by declaring that although, the marriage took place under SMA, the son
was brought up as a Hindu. So, he would be governed by the ordinary Hindu laws, not under the
Special Marriage Act, 1954.

 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
 To study the basic concept of Hindu Undivided Family.
 To understand about the nexus between the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
 To study about the status of widow regarding succession to the property under HUF.
 To study all the precedents dealing with the wider interpretation and explanation of the word
“Hindu”.

 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
This project deals with the issue related to the status of a child who is born out of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954, but brought up as a Hindu, is considered to be as a Hindu child.

 HYPOTHESIS
The status of a child who is born out of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is assumed not to be a
Hindu child. This assumption stands contrary to the situation when the child is brought up as a
Hindu.

9|Page
  RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What happened in the Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. R. Sridharan?
 What were the issues raised in this case?
 How did the Supreme Court view the concerns raised in the case?
 What were the pronouncements made by the Court and the directives issued for
implementation of the same?
 What is the relevance of the case today and has there been sufficient adherence of the
guidelines framed by the Court?

FACTS
In the present case, the respondent was R. Sridharan and from the petitioner was Commissioner
of Wealth Tax. The respondent marries to a Christian girl, Rosa Maria. The marriage took place
under the Special Marriage Act6. After some time, they had one son, Nicholas Sundaram. He was
brought up as a Hindu and was a legitimate child. Before the marriage took place, R. Sridharan
was belonging to Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law. In course of time, while
R. Sridharan was still unmarried, a partition happened between his father and brothers. The
partition resulted into the block of shares in a manner that three private limited companies were
given to the respondent.

To some later time, the respondent went through the process of assessment proceedings in
respect of income tax and wealth tax. While the assessment, the respondent claimed the status of
his son as member of the Hindu Undivided family as the respondent contended that his son by
birth, has his interest in the partitioned property belonging to the joint Hindu family. To this, the
Income tax tribunal rejected the claim of the respondent. The respondent appealed to the Income
tax Appellate tribunal. The Appellate tribunal disfavored the respondent. At last, the respondent
went to the High Court to challenge the decision of the Appellate tribunal. The High Court gave
its decision in favor of R. Sridharan declaring that the son of the respondent was brought up as a
Hindu. So, the succession to the property of his son would be governed by the Hindu ordinary
laws, not the Indian Succession Act, to be read with section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
in cases of property issues when an individual is not a “Hindu”.

6
supra note 4.

10 | P a g e
 MATERIAL FACTS
The marriage took place under the Special Marriage Act7. One of the party was a Hindu and
another one was Christian. The father had a status as member of the Hindu Undivided Family
before the marriage. Before the marriage, the father faced the partition of the property belonging
to the joint Hindu family. After the marriage, the couple had a child who was brought up as a
Hindu and was the legitimate child of the party.

PRINCIPLE
In the present case, the judges laid down certain principles8 for identifying persons to whom
Hindu law will be applicable:

 “not only to Hindu by birth, but also converted to Hinduism;

 to children who are illegitimate where both parents are Hindus;
 To children who are illegitimate where the father is a Christian and the mother is a
Hindu, and the children are brought up as Hindus9. But the Hindu law of coparcenary,
which contemplates the father as the head of the family and the sons as coparceners by
birth with rights of survivorship, cannot from the very nature of the case apply to such
children;
 to Buddhists, and Jains in India, Sikhs and Nambudri Brahmins except so far as such law
is varied by custom and to Lingayat who are considered Sudras;
 to a Hindu by birth, who, having renounced Hinduism, has reverted to it after performing
the religious rites of expiation and repentence;
 to Hindus who made a declaration that they were not Hindus for the purpose of the
SMA.”

7
Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
8
MULLA, TREATISE, Chapter 1, ¶6.

11 | P a g e
 Further, the judges defined the term “Hinduism” with the help of various sources: In
Bhagwan Koer v. J.C. Bose & Ors10, it was held that Hindu religion is marvellously
catholic and elastic. Its theology is marked by eclecticism and tolerance and almost
unlimited freedom of private worship. Also, B.G. Tilak gave description of Hindu
religion as follows: “Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence, recognition of the fact that
the means or ways of salvation are diverse.”11

ISSUES
1. Whether a child brought up as a Hindu would be called as a Hindu child?
2. Whether succession to the property of a Hindu child would be governed under the Indian
Succession Act12, 1925?
3. Whether a child born out of the wedlock under SMA can claim his share in the property
belonging to joint Hindu family after partition?
4. What is/are the exception/s to section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. The child was not a Hindu.
2. The child on not being a Hindu, would not be governed by the ordinary Hindu laws.
3. The child, who was born out of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, would be
governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
4. The succession to property of a child born out of marriage under SMA would be governed by
section 2113 of the SMA.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. The child was a Hindu as he was brought up as a Hindu.
10
Bhagwan Koer v. J.C. Bose & Ors 70 Ind Cas 463 a, ¶19.
11
B.G. TILAK, GITARAHASYA,1915.
12
The Indian Succession Act, 1925, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1925 (India).
13
Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India), §21.

12 | P a g e
 2. The child on being a Hindu, would be governed by the ordinary Hindu laws.
3. The child, who was born out of the marriage under the SMA, 1954, but, brought up as a
Hindu, would be governed by the ordinary Hindu Laws in case of succession to the
property.
4. The succession to property of a child born out of marriage under SMA would not be
governed by section 21 of the SMA as the child was brought up as a Hindu.

DECISION
The High Court gave its decision in favor of the respondent by declaring that the child was a
Hindu as he was brought up as a Hindu. Further, the succession to the property of a child in case
of property belonging to joint Hindu family would be governed by the ordinary Hindu laws, not
by the Indian Succession Act14, 1925. Also, section 2115 of the Act would have no impact on the
joint family structure in case of a Hindu assesse and his son.

RATIONALE
The judges in their reasoning, held that if a child is born out of the Special Marriage Act, 1954,
but brought up as a Hindu, would be considered as a Hindu child. In that case, the succession to
the property of a child would be governed only by the ordinary Hindu laws. Also, the child who
is born out of the marriage under the SMA, 195416, cannot be estranged with the character of
Hindus. Thus, a Hindu child, would have share in the property belonging to the joint Hindu
family.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
In the present case, the ruling of the judges was based on the factor whether the child was a
Hindu or not. To this, the court held that if a child is brought up as a Hindu, then he will treated

14
supra note 12.
15
§21, supra note 13.
16
Id.

13 | P a g e
as a Hindu child and the succession to the property of a child would be governed by the ordinary
Hindu laws.

In many precedents, the court interpreted the word “Hindu” in a wider manner. With the help of
the wider interpretation of the word “Hindu”, the court was able to come up with certain
principles for identifying persons to whom Hindu laws would be applicable. As in Lingappa v.
Esudasen, the court held that if a child is brought up as a Hindu, he would be treated as a Hindu
child, irrespective of whether the child was born out of the marriage under SMA17, 1954.

In my opinion, the principles which were laid in the present case are somewhat helpful in
deciding whether the child is considered to be a Hindu child or not. It is because, the judges,
even today, can be found not following relying upon the principles. As every time, the judge
comes out with a new interpretation of the word “Hindu”. Thus, judges are not having the clear
meaning and fixed set of principles to determine who is treated to be as a Hindu. This creates an
impediment to application of Acts at the time of succession to the property of a person and
various other situations.

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

There exists the need of the hour to have a restricted interpretation of the word ‘Hindu’. It is
because the judges, sometimes find difficulty in reaching to a conclusion when they have to
adjudicate upon the matters relating to the person who has born out of the Special Marriage Act,
17
Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).

14 | P a g e
1954. Further, the scenario, even today is that the judges are not relying upon the principles that
were laid down in catena of judgments. The principles were formulated to help the judges to
decide all the status of an individual who has taken birth out of the wedlock under Special
Marriage Act, 1954.

Ergo, the word ‘Hindu’, is amorphous in nature. It has to be restricted and confined to a narrow
interpretation. The judges cannot, at their whim and caprice, have its broader understanding and
meaning. It is because this attempt of judges, many a times, created a dampener effect on
granting proper justice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES -

15 | P a g e
 1. Indian Succession Act, 1925

2. Special Marriage Act, 1954

BOOKS -

1. Cases & Materials on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Commentary)

2. M.L. Bhargava, Commentary on Indian Succession Act, 1925, Edition 1st, Kamala

Publishers, 2016

3. Lawmann, Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Lawmann’s) Paperback, 2017

4. Family Law Lectures, Family Law II, Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena.

ONLINE SOURCES

 www.casemine.com

16 | P a g e