Case: Inspector Assistant Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Ta Vs. V.K. Ramunni Panikkar, Receiver Of Zomorinestate

the sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the sthanamdar among himself and all the members of his family then living, and the shares falling to the members of his family and the heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property.""Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section the family of a sthanamdar shall include every branch of that family, whether divided or undivided, the male members of which would have been entitled by any custom or usage to succeed to the position of sthanamdar if this Act had not been passed." 5. We have considered the scope of this section in Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 1969, (reported in AIR 1971 SC 2392 ). Hence it is sufficient for our present purpose to state that in view of Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act, it must be held that on the death of Sreemanavikaraman Raja, each of the members of his tarwad took a per capita share in the sthanam property as co-owners and not as his heirs. His personal heirs took the share which the deceased was deemed to have got as his share when he was taking his last breath. Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act embodies a fiction. The purpose of that fiction was to gradually abolish the sthanams and to provide for the devolution of the sthanam properties on the members of sthanis tarwad except as regards one per capita share which the personal heirs of the sthanamdar are to inherit as the heirs of the sthanamdar. 6. The nature of a sthanam was considered by this Court in K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras, (1960) 3 SCR 887 = (AIR 1960 SC 1080 ). Therein this Court observed that according to the custom, sthanam means a position of dignity and respect and for maintaining that position, properties were attached to that office and the same was held by the "stani". Stani is solely entitled to the income of that property during his lifetime. The senior most member of a tarwad usually become the sthanamdar of the sthanam attached to that tarwad. On his succession to stanom, he stood separated from the rest of the family. He solely became entitled to the stanom property but he gave up his right in the tarwad property. All the same he and the members of his tarwad had the same right of succession to the properties of each other as if his severance from the family had been the result not of his succession to the stanom, but a voluntary division between him and the rest of the family. 7. Whatever might have been the customary law, Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act the validity of which was not in issue before us by a fiction deems that the sthanam property stood divided amongst the stani and the members of his tarwad, a split second before his death. From the language of the section, it is clear that the members of the tarwad took the property as co-owners and not as the heirs of the deceased stani. This fiction was created for the purpose of providing for the devolution of the sthanam properties. The Act 28 of 1958 came into force only on May 12, 1958. Therefore that Act cannot have any effect on the sthanam with which we are concerned in this case because that sthanam stood destroyed on May 2, 1958. Hence we need not refer to the provisions of that Act. 8. The income of the sthanam property during November 1, 1956 to March 31, 1958 was the exclusive property of Sreemanavikaraman Raja. He was alone entitled to that income. Therefore he alone was liable to pay the tax.Under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, no charge is created on property in respect of the arrears of agricultural Income-tax. That being so the liability to pay the arrears of tax due from the deceased stani fell on his personal heirs and that only to the extent they received any of his assets. This position is clear from Sec. 24 (1) of the Act which provided that"when a person dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased person to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the agricultural Income-tax assessed as payable by such person or any agricultural Income-tax which would have been payable by him under this Act, if he had not died." 9. The assessment made on Kunjunni Raja in his capacity as the successor sthanamdar was an invalid assessment. Legally he never became the sthanamdar. There was no sthanam after the death of Manavikraman Raja. With the death of Manavikraman Raja the sthanam came to an kind. The only persons who could have represented the estate of Sreemanavikraman Raja were his personal heirs. They were not made parties to the assessment. No notice of the assessment proceedings was given to them. Kanjunni Raja was not one of his legal representatives. Even if it is considered that the sthanam properties had devolved on the members of the tarwad by succession, Kanjunni Raja alone could not have represented the entire body of successors numbering 692. There was no question of any bona fide enquiry by the assessing authority. It was clearly a case of misunderstanding the legal position. Further, it does not appear that Kunjunni Raja was assessed as the legal representative of the deceased stani. He appears to have been assessed as the successor stani liable to pay the debts due from the estate. Hence the assessment was not made in accordance with law, See Income tax Officer, Kozhikode v. Mrs. Susheela Sadanandan, (1965) 57 ITR 168 (SC) . In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to consider the other provisions of the Act providing for the assessment and collection of the tax due from a deceased person.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The income of the sthanam property during November 1, 1956 to March 31, 1958 was the exclusive property of Sreemanavikaraman Raja. He was alone entitled to that income. Therefore he alone was liable to pay the tax.Under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, no charge is created on property in respect of the arrears of agricultural Income-tax. That being so the liability to pay the arrears of tax due from the deceased stani fell on his personal heirs and that only to the extent they received any of his assets. This position is clear from Sec. 24 (1) of the Act which provided that"when a person dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased person to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the agricultural Income-tax assessed as payable by such person or any agricultural Income-tax which would have been payable by him under this Act, if he had not died."9. The assessment made on Kunjunni Raja in his capacity as the successor sthanamdar was an invalid assessment. Legally he never became the sthanamdar. There was no sthanam after the death of Manavikraman Raja. With the death of Manavikraman Raja the sthanam came to an kind. The only persons who could have represented the estate of Sreemanavikraman Raja were his personal heirs. They were not made parties to the assessment. No notice of the assessment proceedings was given to them. Kanjunni Raja was not one of his legal representatives. Even if it is considered that the sthanam properties had devolved on the members of the tarwad by succession, Kanjunni Raja alone could not have represented the entire body of successors numbering 692. There was no question of any bona fide enquiry by the assessing authority. It was clearly a case of misunderstanding the legal position. Further, it does not appear that Kunjunni Raja was assessed as the legal representative of the deceased stani. He appears to have been assessed as the successor stani liable to pay the debts due from the estate. Hence the assessment was not made in accordance with law, See Income tax Officer, Kozhikode v. Mrs. Susheela Sadanandan, (1965) 57 ITR 168 (SC) . In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to consider the other provisions of the Act providing for the assessment and collection of the tax due from a deceased person5. We have considered the scope of this section in Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 1969, (reported in AIR 1971 SC 2392 ). Hence it is sufficient for our present purpose to state that in view of Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act, it must be held that on the death of Sreemanavikaraman Raja, each of the members of his tarwad took a per capita share in the sthanam property ass and not as his heirs. His personal heirs took the share which the deceased was deemed to have got as his share when he was taking his last breath. Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act embodies a fiction. The purpose of that fiction was to gradually abolish the sthanams and to provide for the devolution of the sthanam properties on the members of sthanis tarwad except as regards one per capita share which the personal heirs of the sthanamdar are to inherit as the heirs of the sthanamdar7. Whatever might have been the customary law, Section 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act the validity of which was not in issue before us by a fiction deems that the sthanam property stood divided amongst the stani and the members of his tarwad, a split second before his death. From the language of the section, it is clear that the members of the tarwad took the property ass and not as the heirs of the deceased stani. This fiction was created for the purpose of providing for the devolution of the sthanam properties. The Act 28 of 1958 came into force only on May 12, 1958. Therefore that Act cannot have any effect on the sthanam with which we are concerned in this case because that sthanam stood destroyed on May 2, 1958. Hence we need not refer to the provisions of that Act.