The court held that there can be a Hindu undivided family consisting of female members only, even in the absence of a male member. In this case, Rani PannaKuar received maintenance allowance as a member of the Hindu undivided family, not due to the agreement executed. The agreement merely acknowledged the pre-existing liability to pay her maintenance as a widow of the undivided family.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Gomedalli Lakshminarayan
• case held that the presence of a Hindu
Undivided Family, not the existence of
coparcenary, is taken into account for taxation
reasons; hence, the family remains a Joint
Family, and the assesses’s income should be
taxed as the income of the Hindu Undivided
Family.

3. FACTS:
• The Hindu Joint Family of the respondent
comprised his father, mother, himself, and his
wife.
• His father died in 1929, before the assessment
year, leaving him, his mother, and his wife as
the Joint Hindu Family, with the property
passing to him (sole surviving male member of
the Hindu Undivided Family, by rights of
survivorship).

4. ISSUES:
• Whether the income received by the sole
surviving male member of a Hindu undivided
family under the right of survivorship can be
taxed as his income in the hands of such male
members, or whether it should be taxed as the
income of a Hindu undivided family for
assessment to super-tax under section 55 of the
Income Tax Act, 1922?
• What is the difference between “Hindu Undivided
Family” and “Hindu Coparcenary”?

5. CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff’s contention
• The assesses is to be assessed as an individual or
as a member of a joint Hindu family, such that if
he is taxed as the manager of a joint Hindu family,
he would be permitted a larger super-tax
exemption than if he is taxed as an individual.
Defendant’s contention
• A Hindu undivided family is included in the
definition of “person” under Section 2(9) of the
Income Tax Act, although it is not defined
anywhere in the Act.

6. RATIO DECIDENDI (the point in a case
that determines the judgement):
Bench: J Beaumont, J Rangnekar
• A joint Hindu family is made up of all lineal descendants of
a common ancestor and their wives and unmarried
daughters.
• In this sense, an undivided Hindu family varies from a
Hindu coparcenary, a considerably narrower body.
• The Hindu coparcenary exclusively comprises male
members who inherit an interest in the coparcenary
property by birth; this is known as apratibandha day, or
unimpeded legacy, which is passed down the generations.
• These are the three generations of uninterrupted male
descent from the last holder.

7. • Unless and until it is shown otherwise, the family is
regarded as joint
• Although the property was ancestral, there is a
difference between HUF and coparcenary.
• The presence of a Hindu Undivided Family, not the
existence of coparcenary, is taken into account for
taxation reasons; hence, the family remains a Joint
Family, and the assesses’s income should be taxed as
the income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
• The Court held that revenue generated through
survivorship in the hands of the lone surviving
coparcener should be considered HUF income rather
than his income.

8. DECISION:
• The court held that the income of the assesses
should be taxed as the income of the Hindu
undivided family for the Income Tax Act, 1922.

9. CONCLUSION:
• Unless and until it is shown otherwise, the family is
regarded as joint.
• Although the property was ancestral, there is a
difference between HUF and coparcenary.
• The presence of a Hindu Undivided Family, not the
existence of coparcenary, is taken into account for
taxation reasons; hence, the family remains a Joint
Family, and the assesses’s income should be taxed as
the income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
• The Court held that revenue generated through
survivorship in the hands of the lone surviving
coparcener should be considered HUF income rather
than his income.

10. When there is no male member,
can it be said that a Hindu
undivided family is in existence?
Commissioner of Income Tax V. Sarvan
Kumar Citation :1945 13 ITR 361 All

11. Brief :
• The agreement did no more than to acknowledge
the liability to pay monthly allowance at a fixed
and enhanced rate to PannaKuar.
• The nature of the allowance received by her was
not, therefore, altered and, in spite of the
execution of the agreement, the allowance
received by her was in the capacity as a widow of
an undivided Hindu family.

12. Facts:
• There was an undivided Hindu family of which
Raja Jagat Kumar was the sole surviving
coparcener, 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 (his father), and two
illegitimate sons of his father who are receiving
maintenance out of the family estate.

13. Issue :
• When there is no male member, can it be said
that a Hindu undivided family is in existence?
• Did Rani PannaKuar( stepmother of Raja Jagat
Kumar) receive the maintenance allowance of Rs.
27,000 a year in her capacity as a member of a
Hindu undivided family and not by virtue of the
agreement executed on the 5th May, 1932?

14. • Contentions raised by Respondent : The
existence of a joint estate is not an essential
requisite to constitute a joint Hindu family and
there may be such a family without owning any
property.
• Contentions raised by Appellant : The existence
of at least one male member is essential for the
constitution of a Hindu undivided family. There
can be no joint Hindu family consisting of females
only.

15. Held :
1) A family is an association of people. It is a
natural as distinct from an artificial
association. The members of an undivided
Hindu family consist both of males and
females. In other words, females are and
can be component parts of an undivided
Hindu family. That being so, there can be
in our judgment, an undivided Hindu
family consisting of females only.

16. • 2) Before the agreement of May 1932, PannaKuar
was receiving a sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of
her monthly allowance. It is equally manifest that
she received this allowance in her capacity as a
widow of a Hindu undivided family. The
agreement did no more than to acknowledge the
liability to pay monthly allowance at a fixed and
enhanced rate to PannaKuar. The nature of the
allowance received by her was not, therefore,
altered and, in spite of the execution of the
agreement, the allowance received by her was in
the capacity as a widow of an undivided Hindu
family.