IQBAL AHMAD, C.J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS is a reference under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and the questions referred for decision by this Court are :- (1) Whether the undivided Hindu family of which Raja Jagat Kumar was the sole surviving coparcener and who died in 1934, leaving behind two widows, an unmarried daughter, a mother, a stepmother who during his lifetime was entitled to and receiving maintenance as the widow of a predeceased coparcener, and two illegitimate sons of his father who are receiving maintenance out of the family estate, ceased to exist on Raja Jagat Kumars death. (2) Whether when the amount of maintenance that the widow of predeceased coparcener had in the past been receiving as a member of a Hindu undivided family has been fixed by an agreement, the amount received by her under the agreement ceases to be an amount received by her as member of an undivided Hindu family. For a proper appreciation of these questions, which are a bit involved, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail as they appear from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal There is an estate known as Sahaspur Bilari Estate in the district of Moradabad. The estate was till the year 1915 admittedly owned by a joint Hindu family of which the head and the karta was Raja Kishen Kumar. The family pedigree of Raja Kishen Kumar is as follows :- Raja Kishen Kumar died in June 1915 and then Raja Raj Kumar became the karta of the undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his minor of son Jagat and the other female members of the family. Raj Kumar also died in November 1915 leaving two widows Panna Kuar and Amrit Kuar. He also left him surviving two illegitimate sons named Lachhmi Narain and Jai Narain by a concubine named Mst. Kokila. As Jagat Kumar was a minor at the time of the death of Raj Kumar, the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the estate of which Jagat Kumar had become the sole owner. It is a matter of admission that after the death of Raj Kumar, Panna Kumar, the Senior Rani, was paid by the Court of a Wards a monthly allowance of Rs. 2,000 on account of her maintenance.
(3.) IN 1927 dissensions appear to have arisen in the family and Panna Kuar instituted a suit in that year in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad for possession of the Bilari Estate. The suit was based on the allegation that Amrit Kuar was not a lawfully wedded wife but only a concubine of Raja Raj Kumar, and as such, Jagat Kumar, Panna Kuar, as his sole surviving widow became entitled to the entire estate. Jagat Kumar, through the Collector of Moradabad who was in charge of the Court of Wards, Rani Amrit Kuar and Bibi Lachhmi were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants. They denied the allegations contained in the plaint and maintained that Amrit Kuar was the wife of Raj Kumar and Jagat Kumar was Raj Kumars legitimate son. The suit did not proceed to trial but was compromised on June 4, 1928. The compromise is evidence by an application that was filed in Court. The application runs as follows :- In the case noted above an agreement is being made between the parties in accordance with the advice of the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Mr. Collett and in honour of King Emperors birthday ceremony. This agreement is come to between the parties of whom, I, the plaintiff Rani Panna Kuar, hereby withdraw my civil suit against Raja Jagat Kumar and the Collector of Moradabad against Bibi Lachhmi and against Rani Amrit Kuar, and I explicitly withdraw all allegations made therein; and I further undertake not to bring any such suit again nor to repeat the allegations in future. ;