Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 s.3(2) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 s.3(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Pushpa Devi v. CIT — the right to blend is limited to coparceners, so a Hindu female who is not a coparcener cannot throw her separate property into the family stock
Supreme CourtHelps department
A lady member of a Hindu undivided family made a sworn declaration throwing her own money and her share in a business into the family stock, and the family has been offering the income ever since. The Assessing Officer says the income is still hers. Who is right?
On these facts the Assessing Officer. The Supreme Court held that the true rule of blending is that the right to blend is limited to coparceners: it is the coparcener who alone can blend his separate property with joint family property, and the right is not available to a female who, though a member of the joint family, is not a coparcener — and it makes no difference whether the separate property is her absolute property or one in which she has a limited estate. The income was therefore not assessable in the hands of the family on the footing of blending. The Court nevertheless allowed the appeal in part on the second question: the declaration was held to amount to a gift by the appellant to the undivided family, and the income of the property so gifted was directed to be brought to tax consistently with that finding and in accordance with law.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
