Site navigation

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. (1965), why did the Supreme Court hold…

The Court linked kartaship to coparcenary status and held that the widow was a family member without that status under the law it applied. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu…

Choose your answer

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. (1965), why did the Supreme Court hold that the widow could not act as karta under the law then applicable?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

The Court linked kartaship to coparcenary status and held that the widow was a family member without that status under the law it applied. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act gives daughters coparcenary status on the same terms as sons.

Option feedback

Option A

The Court considered the partnership deed separately. It based the kartaship point on the distinction between family membership and coparcenary.

Option B

The Court treated coparcenary status as necessary for kartaship and held that a widow in the case did not have that status.

Option C

The Court held that she was not a coparcener. It did not base the result on a lack of unanimous consent.

Option D

Residence outside the household was not the ground for the Court’s decision.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic