ivil Appeal Nos
1399 to 1403 of 1970
479 Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 20th December 1 968 A the Madras High Court in Tax Case No 31464 Reference No 82 of 1964 and Civil Appeal No 301 of 1974 Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 3rd April 1972 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No 328 of 1966 Reference No 8866
section T Desai J Ramamurthi for the appellant In CA 1399 1403 of 1970
section Swaminathan Mrs section Gopalakrishnan for the Respondent in all the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J
These Appeals Nos
1399 to 1403 of 1970 and 301 of 1974 by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras shall be disposed of together by this judgment as they raise common question of law and fact
The circumstances giving rise to these appeals are The late R Sridharan along with his father and brothers constituted a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara law
On June 28 1952 while he was still unmarried a partition took place between him his brothers and his father
As a result of this partition a block of shares in T V Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited and three other limited companies fell to his share
On June 14 1956 Sridharan married Rosa Maria Steinbchler a Christian woman of Austrian descent under the 
On November 29 1957 a son named Nicolas Sundaram was born out of this wedlock
For the assessment years 1957 58 and 1958 59 Sridharan was assessed to income tax and wealth tax in the status of an individual  on his own declaration to that effect
In the assessment proceedings in respect of income tax and wealth tax for the assessment years 1959 60 1960 61 and 1961 62 and in the assessment proceedings under the Expenditure Tax Act for the year 1961 62 he claimed to be assessed in the status of a member of Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his son Nicolas Sundaram contending that the property held by him was ancestral and Nicolas Sundaram was a Hindu
The Income Tax officer Wealth Tax officer and Expenditure Tax officer refused to accede to the contention of Sridharan and assessed him in the status of an individual  as in the previous years on the grounds that the value of the share and other investments standing in his name being his exclusive properties and by virtue of section 21 of the  succession to the property of a person whose marriage has been solemnized under that Act being governed by the  and not by the ordinary Hindu law Nicolas Sundaram could not become a member of Hindu undivided family with his father
Sridharan thereupon went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but remained unsuccessful
The orders passed by the Income 480 Tax Wealth TaxExpenditure Tax officers and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were also affirmed in appeals against the assessments respectively made under the Income tax Act Wealth Tax Act and the Expenditure Tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal
In the course of its consolidated order rejecting the appeals the appellate Tribunal observed that although section 21 of the pre served some of the rights in the family property of the children born out of marriage solemnized under that Act it did not clothe such off spring with the character of Hindus and therefore there was no Hindu undivided family of Sridharan and his son which could claim to be taxed as Hindu undivided family
Thereafter on the applications made by Sridharan under section 27  1  of the Wealth Tax Act section 66  1  of the Income tax Act and section 25l of the Expenditure Tax Act the Income tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following common question of law arising from its aforesaid decision for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee and his son constituted a Hindu undivided family for purposes of assessment under the Income tax Wealth tax and Expenditure tax Acts  The High Court following the decision of this Court in Gowli Buddanna vs Commissioner of Income taxl held that Sridharan s claim to be reckoned as Hindu undivided family was well merited and the Tribunal was in error in holding that there was no Hindu undivided family of Sridharan and his son which could claim to be assessed and taxed as such either under the Income tax Act or Wealth Tax Act or the Expenditure Tax Act
The High Court accordingly answered the question in the affirmative but granted certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court
Sridharan died on April 9 1962
A few days after the valuation date relevant for the assessment year 1963 64 his widow Mrs Rosa Maria Steinbchler filed a wealth tax return claiming that the assessment for the assessment year 1962 63 should be made in the status of Hindu undivided family
The Wealth Tax officer following his earlier decision in the assessment proceedings in respect of the previous years rejected the claim of Rosa Maria Steinbchler holding that she was not a Hindu and in any case since her marriage with Sridharan was under the  Nicolas Sundaram had no right by birth in the properties obtained by the assessee on partition
He further held that Nicolas Sundaram could claim Sridharan s property only under the and not under the Hindu law
on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Wealth Tax officer
A further appeal was 481 Whether the assessee Sridharan and his son constituted A in law a Hindu undivided family for the purpose of assessment under the  The High Court answered the question in the affirmative ie
against the Revenue observing that the decision in the previous reference directly governed the facts of the fresh reference
Aggrieved by this order of the High Court the appellant applied and obtained leave to appeal to this Court under section 291 of the q and Article 1331c of the Constitution of India
This is how the appeals are before us
Counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents have repeated before us the contentions respectively advanced on behalf of the parties before the High Court
It cannot be disputed that a joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters
It cannot also be disputed that property obtained by Sridharan on partition between his father and brothers could become ancestral property so far as his sons grandsons and great grandsons were concerned who could according to Mitakshara law acquire an interest therein by birth
The sole question which however falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether Nicolas Sundaram is a Hindu governed by Hindu law
It is a matter of common knowledge that Hinduism embraces within itself so many diverse forms of beliefs faiths practices and worship that it is difficult to define the term Hindu  with precision
The historical and etymological genesis of the word Hindu has been succinctly explained by Gajendragadkar CJ in Shastri Yagnapurushdasji  ors
vs Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya  Anrl
In Unabridged Edition of Webster s Third New International Dictionary of the English language the term Hinduism  has been defined as meaning a complex body of social cultural and religious beliefs and practices evolved in and largely confined to the Indian subcontinent and marked by a caste system an outlook tending to view all forms and theories as aspects of one eternal being and truth a belief in ahimsa karma dharma sansara and moksha and the practice of the way of works the way of knowledge or the way of devotion as the means of release from the bound of rebirths the way of life and form r of thought of a Hindu
In Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th Edition the term Hinduism  has been defined as meaning the civilization of Hindus originally the inhabitants of the land of the Indus River
It properly denotes the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2000 years which 1  33 833 SCI76 482 gradually evolved from Vedism the religion of the ancient Indo European peoples who settled in India in the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BC
Because it integrates a large variety of heterogeneous elements Hinduism constitutes a very complex but largely continuous whole and since it covers the whole of life it has religious social economic literary and artistic aspects
As a religion Hinduism is an utterly diverse conglomerate of doctrines cults and way of life 
In principle Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any
The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation whatever it may be and is doctrinally tolerant leaving others including both Hindus and non Hindus whatever creed and worship practices suit them best
A Hindu may embrace a non Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well being of the world and mankind
Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable
The core of religion does not even depend on the existence or non existence of God or on whether there is one god or many
Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition it is not conceived in dogmatic terms
Hinduism is then both a civilization and a conglomerate of religions with neither a beginning a founder nor a central authority hierarchy or organization
Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has proved unsatisfactory in one way or another the more so because the finest Indian scholars of Hinduism including Hindus themselves have emphasized different aspects of the whole
In his celebrated treatise Gitarahasaya BG Tilak has given the following broad description of the Hindu religion  Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence recognition of the fact that the means or ways of salvation are diverse and realisation of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion
In Bhagwan Koer vs J C Bose  orsl 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
Its social code is much more stringent but amongst its different castes and sections exhibits wide diversity of practice
No trait is more marked of Hindu society in general than its herror of using the meat of the cow
This being the scope and nature of the religion it is not strange that it holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of the Hindu religion
1 Cal
483 It will be advantageous at this stage to refer to page 671 of Mulla s A Principles of Hindu Law Fourteenth Edition where the position is stated thus  The word Hindu  does not denote any particular religion or community
During the last hundred years and more it has been a nomenclature used to refer comprehensively to various categories of people for purposes of personal law
It has been applied to dissenters and non comformists and even to those who have entirely repudiated Brahminism
It has been applied to various religious sects and bodies which at various periods and in circumstances developed out of or split off from the Hindu system but whose members have nevertheless continued to live under the Hindu law and the Courts have generally put a liberal construction upon enactments relating to the personal laws applicable to Hindus
In paragraph 6 of Chapter I of Mulla s aforesaid Treatise the following have been enumerated as persons to whom Hindu law applies i not only to Hindu by birth but also to Hindus by religion ie converts to Hinduism ii to illegitimate children where both parents are Hindus iiito illegitimate children where the father is a Christian and the mother is a Hindu and the children are brought up as Hindus
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 iv to Jains Buddhists in India Sikhs and Nambudri Brahmins except so far as such law is varied by custom and to Lingayat who are considered Sudras v to a Hindu by birth who having renounced Hinduism has reverted to it after performing the religious rites of expiation and repentence
Or even without a formal ritual of reconversion when he was recognised as a Hindu by his community vi to sons of Hindu dancing girls of the Naik caste converted to Mahomedanism where the sons are taken into the family of the Hindu grandparents and are brought up as Hindus vii to Brahmos to Arya Samajists and to Santhals of Chota Nagpur and also to Santhals of Manbhum except so far as it is not varied by custom and 484 viii to Hindus who made a declaration that they were not Hindus for the purpose of the Special Marriage Act 1872
 This enumeration is based upon decisions of various courts relating to old uncodified Hindu law
In Lingappa vs Esudasenl which related to maintenance it was held that Hindu law does not apply to the illegitimate children of a Hindu father by a Christian mother who are brought up a Christians
This decision indirectly leads to the conclusion that legitimate children of a Hindu father by a Christian mother who are brought up as Hindus would be governed by Hindu law
In Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar vs Koney Narayana Rao  ors2 whole approving the observations made in Ananthaya vs Vishnu3 this Court inter alia held that under the Mitakshara law an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance as long as he lives in recognition of his status as a member of his father s family
Under the codifying Acts namely the  the  the Hindu Minority and Guardian ship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 the orthodox concept of the term Hindu  has undergone a radical change and it has been given an extended meaning
The aforesaid codifying Acts not only apply to Hindus by birth or religion ie to converts to Hinduism but also to a large number of other persons
According to explanation b to section 21 of the  Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and as also according to explanation ii to section 31 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 any child legitimate or illegitimate one of whose parents is a Hindu by religion and who is brought up as a Hindu is a Hindu
In the present case Sridharan is a Hindu by birth and was lawfully married to Rosa Maria Steinbchler
Even after his marriage he did not renounce Hinduism but continued to profess that religion
Having been begotten out of the aforesaid valid and lawful wedlock Nicolas Sundaram is a legitimate child and lineal descendant of Sridharan
There is no material on the record to show that Nicolas Sundaram was not brought up as a Hindu or that he did not conform to the habits and usages of Hinduism or that he was not recognised as a Hindu by the society surrounding him or that he became a convert to another faith
Sridharan has also unequivocally acknowledged and expressly declared that he and his son Nicolas Sundaram formed a Hindu undivided family
This declaration in the circumstances is sufficient as also found by the High Court to establish that Nicolas Sundaram was brought up as a Hindu member of the family to which his father belonged
At page 290 of his Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage Eleventh Edition Mayne says that a child in India under ordinary circumstances must be presumed to have his father s 1 2 AIR 1953 SC 433
3 17 Mad
485 religion and his corresponding civil and social status
He there A fore have no hesitation in holding that Nicolas Sundaram is a Hindu and he could validly be a member of the Hindu undivided family headed by his father and be governed by Hindu law
Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act which has been heavily relied upon by the Revenue has in our opinion no bearing on the present case
That section provides that succession to the property of a person whose marriage has been solemnized under the and the property of the issue of such marriage shall be governed by the provisions of the XXXIX of 1925
In other words the section guarantees inter alia to the issue of the person whose marriage has been solemnized under the a collateral statutory right of succession to the estate of the latter in case he dies intestate
It does not in any way impair or alter the joint family structure between an assessee and his son
Nor does it effect as observed by the High Court the discretion vested in a Hindu assessee to treat his properties as joint family properties by taking into his fold his Hindu sons so as to constitute joint family properties
For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the aforesaid question referred to the High Court was rightly answered by it on both the occasions
In the result we find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs
MR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The late R Sridharan married Rosa Maria Steinbichler a christian Austrian of descent under the and a son Nicolas Sundaram was born out of the wedlock
In the assessment proceedings i respect of income tax wealth tax and expenditure tax Sridharan claimed to be assessed in the status of a member of Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself and his son contending that the property held by him was ancestral and Nicolas Sundaram was a Hindu
The officers dealing with these taxes rejected the contention and assessed him as an individual on the ground that succession to the property of a person married under the  is governed by the and not by ordinary Hindu Law and Nicolas Sundaram could not become a member of Hindu Undivided Family With his father
these orders were affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commission i the Appellate Tribunal in appeals by Sridharan against the assessments
On further applications made by Sridharan the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court which decided in favour of Sridharan but granted a certificate of fitness
Meanwhile Sridharan died and his widow filed wealth tax returns claiming the status of a member of Hindu Undivided Family
The Revenue authorities followed their earlier decisions and ultimately the matter was referred to the High Court which decided in favour of respondent Mrs Sridharan but granted Leave to appeal to this Court
Dismissing the appeals the Court  HELD  1  Under the codifying Acts
the orthodox concept of the term Hindu has undergone a radical change and it has been given an extended meaning
The Acts not only apply to Hindus but also to a large number of other persons
Any child legitimate or illegitimate one of whose parents is a Hindu by religion and who is brought up as a Hindu is a Hindu
478D E 2 Section 21 of the has no bearing on the present case
The section does not in any way impair or alter the joint family structure between n assessee and his son
Nor does it affect the discretion vested in a Hindu assessee to treat his properties as joint family properties by taking into his fold his Hindu sons so as to continue joint family properties 479 A C Shastri Yagnapurushdasji  Ors
vs Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and Anr   Bhagwan Koer vs J C Bose  Ors
11 Lingappa vs Esudasan  Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar vs Koney Narayana Rao  Ors
AIR 1953 SC 433 and Ananthaya vs Vishnu  referred to
Webster s 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th Edn Gitarahasya by B G Tilak Principles of Hindu Law 14th Edn pp 671 and chap
I para 6 by Mulla and Hindu Law  Usage 11th Edn pp 290 by Mayne referred to