PATHAK J. - (1.) BY this statement of the case under section 24(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the Revision Board has referred the following question to this court for decision : Whether on the facts of the case the Rajmata is a coparcener within the meaning of section 10, and, if she is a coparcener, whether her one-half share should be separately assessed to tax ?
(2.) THE assessees father, the previous Raja of Jaunpur, died some years ago. Before his death he constituted a joint Hindu family under the Mitakshara law with his wife and his son, and enjoyed an interest in the joint family property. It is not disputed that he died after the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, had come into force. Upon his death his widow the Rajmata became entitled to enjoy in the joint family property the same interest as he himself had by virtue of section 3(2) of that Act, and consequent to section 3(3) the same right to claim partition. Accordingly, in the event of partition she would be entitled to a one-half share of the joint family property. For the assessment year 1358 Fasli, the Collector of Jaunpur assessed the assessee to agricultural income-tax on the entire agricultural income from the joint family property, repelling the contention that the Rajmata was a coparcener. Upon appeal the Commissioner held that the Rajmata was scoparcener, and the assessee was liable to tax only upon half of the entire agricultural income. The State of Uttar Pradesh proceeded in revision before the Revision Board contending that the Rajmata was not a coparcener. Upon this revision application pending before it, the Revision Board has made this reference. Section 10 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act states : 10. Assessment of income of undivided Hindu family. - Tax on agricultural income of an undivided Hindu family shall be so assessed that the share of income which a coparcener would receive upon partition of the family shall be treat as the separate income of each coparcener and shall be liable to tax as such : provided firstly, that a father and a son or a sons son howsoever low shall be deemed to be one coparcener for the purposer of this section, and provided, secondly, that the Income derived by a woman from her stridhana property shall not be be included in the agricultural income of the joint Hindu family. The contention advanced on behalf of the assessee is that, by reason of the provisions of the Hindu womens Rights to Property Act, the Rajmata became a coparcener in the joint Hindu family upon the death of her husband.
(3.) TO appreciate the contention, it is necessary to examine the concept in Hindu Law of a Mitakshara coparcenary and the basis underlying it. The term coparcener was borrowed by Colebrooke from the English law for the purpose of describing the members of a joint Hindu family. A coparcenary in English law, is however, very different from the body to which the term was sought to be applied in Hindu Law, as was pointed out by the Privy Council in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh. But as applied in the Hindu Law, it has now come to enjoy a well accepted and clearly defined meaning.;