# Commission<r of Income-tax, Bomba;• v. Smt. Indira · Balkrishna

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 521
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Bench:** jAFER IMAM, S. K. Das, ]. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, M. HrnAYATULLA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commission-r-of-income-tax-bomba-v-smt-indira-balkrishna-1739
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Grant by Ruler to younger son as Bhayat-Son becoming Ruler
-Whether grant resumable-"Bhayat", Meaning of.
In the Indian State of
Vadia succession was
governed by
primogeniture. The Ruler in 1943
granted to his younger son,
the petitioner, a village in the State in perpetuity and in heredity
for enjoyment as 'Kapal-Giras' as 'Bhayat'. ln -1947 the State
of Vadia acceded to the Dominion of India and by subsequent
constitutional deve!opments it became
merged in the State of
Saurashtra. After the coming into force of the Constitution the
elder son of the Ruler and then the Ruler died, and the petitioner
was recogni~ed as the Ruler.
Thereupon· the State of Saurashtra
issued a notification resuming the grant as it was deemed to have
lapsed and revened to the
former Vadia State.
The petitioner
contended
that the grant
was absolute
and
unconditional for
April 14.
1960
Darbcr Shri Vira
Vala Surag V alo,
Varlia
V.
State of Saurashtra
Kapur J.
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960J
permanent
enjoyment from
generation to
generation and
the
State could not resume it:
Held, that the grant lapsed on the petitioner becoming the
Ruler and the
State could resume it.
The grant was to the
petitioner as a
"Bhayat", \vhich word
meant a cadet or the
descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar's family where the
estate follo~·ed the rule of primogeniture; as such it ensured for
his benefit as long as he remained a cadet.
But when the grantee
became the Ruler and ceased to be a "Bhayat", the grant came
to an end.
·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 62 of 1956.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N. H. Ilingorani and A. N. Sinha, for the petitioner.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
l 960. April 11.
The .J u<lgrnent of the Court was
delivered
by
KAPUR, .J.-Prior to
the integration of the Indian
States with the Union of I nclia on the promulgation of
the Constitution of India there """ in Kathiawad a
State of the name of Vadia, succession to the Rulership
of which was by primogeiliture.
Its Ruler then was
Darbar Saheb Shri Snrag Vala Bavavala.
He had two
sons Kumar Shri
Krishan Kumar and the petitioner
Kumar Shri Vira Vala Surag Vala.
Kumar Shri
Krishan Kumar being the cider son was the heir-apparent.
On .July 5, l !143, the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri
Surag Vala executed two documents in favour of the
petitioner granting him in perpetuity and in heredity
a village called 'Mota Pithadia· in the State for enjoyment
as
'Kap'11-Giras'
as
'Bhayat".
The word
'Bhavat'
means
a cadet or the descendant
of a
youn'ger branch of a Talukdar·s family where the State
follows die r11le of primogPnilure. 'Kapal-Giras' means
a grant in appanage as a birthright to a share in the
patrimony.
Sometime in or about August, 19'17, the State of Vadi;t
acceded to the .Dominion of India on the terms contained in an instrument of accession then executed.
Thereafter, on .January ~'l, 19"}8, various States in the
Kathiall'arl area entered into a cm·enant forming the
United State of:
Kathiawacl, aho called the United
State of Saurashtra.
In terms of this
covenant
the
. ..
·-
...
f
---.
••
. '
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
523
assets of each State excepting the private properties
of the Ruler, became the assets of the United State.
The covenant also provided that the Ruler of each
State shall be entitled to receive a .certain sum as his
privy purse from the revenues of the United State, to
retain ownership of all private properties to be determined in the manner provided and to all personal
p1'ivileges, dignities and titles.
The Government of
India concurred in the covenant and guaranteed all
its provisions.
The State of Vadia was a party to
this covenant and its assets therefore became vested
in the U nitecl State.
On September 13, 1948, the
United State of Kathiawad executed a fresh instrument of accession to the Dominion of India cancelling
the instrument of accession executed by the covenant_ing States in or about

## Text

••
• ·1
••
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
-521
vVe have indicated above what
is
the crucial test
in determining an association of persons within the
meaning of s. 3, and we are of the view that the test
suggested by lea1•ned counsel for the appellant are
neither conclusive nor determinative of the question
before us.
Corning back to the facts found by the Tribunal,
there is no finding that the three widows have corn_bined in a joint enterprise to produce income. The
only finding is that they have not exercised their right
to separate en joyrnent, and except for receiving the
dividends and interest jointly, it has been found that
they have clone no act which has helped to produce
income 111 respect of the shares and deposits.
On
these fmdings it cannot be held that the three widows
had the status of an association of persons within the
meaning of s. 3 of the Indian Income Tax Act.
The High Court correctly answered question No. 3
in the negative.
Accordingly, the appeals fail and are
dismissed with costs.
There will be one set of hearing
fee in the two_ appeals.
Appeals dismissed .
DARBAR SHRI VIRA VALA SU RAG 'y ALA,
1960
Commission<r of
Income-tax,
Bomba;•
v.
Smt. Indira
· Balkrishna
S.K. Das J.
I
VADIA
1960
v.
'
THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA (NO-W BOMBAY)
(jAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS, ]. L. KAPUR,
A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLA, JJ.)
Grant by Ruler to younger son as Bhayat-Son becoming Ruler
-Whether grant resumable-"Bhayat", Meaning of.
In the Indian State of
Vadia succession was
governed by
primogeniture. The Ruler in 1943
granted to his younger son,
the petitioner, a village in the State in perpetuity and in heredity
for enjoyment as 'Kapal-Giras' as 'Bhayat'. ln -1947 the State
of Vadia acceded to the Dominion of India and by subsequent
constitutional deve!opments it became
merged in the State of
Saurashtra. After the coming into force of the Constitution the
elder son of the Ruler and then the Ruler died, and the petitioner
was recogni~ed as the Ruler.
Thereupon· the State of Saurashtra
issued a notification resuming the grant as it was deemed to have
lapsed and revened to the
former Vadia State.
The petitioner
contended
that the grant
was absolute
and
unconditional for
April 14.
1960
Darbcr Shri Vira
Vala Surag V alo,
Varlia
V.
State of Saurashtra
Kapur J.
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960J
permanent
enjoyment from
generation to
generation and
the
State could not resume it:
Held, that the grant lapsed on the petitioner becoming the
Ruler and the
State could resume it.
The grant was to the
petitioner as a
"Bhayat", \vhich word
meant a cadet or the
descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar's family where the
estate follo~·ed the rule of primogeniture; as such it ensured for
his benefit as long as he remained a cadet.
But when the grantee
became the Ruler and ceased to be a "Bhayat", the grant came
to an end.
·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 62 of 1956.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N. H. Ilingorani and A. N. Sinha, for the petitioner.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
l 960. April 11.
The .J u<lgrnent of the Court was
delivered
by
KAPUR, .J.-Prior to
the integration of the Indian
States with the Union of I nclia on the promulgation of
the Constitution of India there """ in Kathiawad a
State of the name of Vadia, succession to the Rulership
of which was by primogeiliture.
Its Ruler then was
Darbar Saheb Shri Snrag Vala Bavavala.
He had two
sons Kumar Shri
Krishan Kumar and the petitioner
Kumar Shri Vira Vala Surag Vala.
Kumar Shri
Krishan Kumar being the cider son was the heir-apparent.
On .July 5, l !143, the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri
Surag Vala executed two documents in favour of the
petitioner granting him in perpetuity and in heredity
a village called 'Mota Pithadia· in the State for enjoyment
as
'Kap'11-Giras'
as
'Bhayat".
The word
'Bhavat'
means
a cadet or the descendant
of a
youn'ger branch of a Talukdar·s family where the State
follows die r11le of primogPnilure. 'Kapal-Giras' means
a grant in appanage as a birthright to a share in the
patrimony.
Sometime in or about August, 19'17, the State of Vadi;t
acceded to the .Dominion of India on the terms contained in an instrument of accession then executed.
Thereafter, on .January ~'l, 19"}8, various States in the
Kathiall'arl area entered into a cm·enant forming the
United State of:
Kathiawacl, aho called the United
State of Saurashtra.
In terms of this
covenant
the
. ..
·-
...
f
---.
••
. '
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
523
assets of each State excepting the private properties
of the Ruler, became the assets of the United State.
The covenant also provided that the Ruler of each
State shall be entitled to receive a .certain sum as his
privy purse from the revenues of the United State, to
retain ownership of all private properties to be determined in the manner provided and to all personal
p1'ivileges, dignities and titles.
The Government of
India concurred in the covenant and guaranteed all
its provisions.
The State of Vadia was a party to
this covenant and its assets therefore became vested
in the U nitecl State.
On September 13, 1948, the
United State of Kathiawad executed a fresh instrument of accession to the Dominion of India cancelling
the instrument of accession executed by the covenant_ing States in or about August, 1947. On November 13,
1949, the United State of Kathiawad agreed to adopt
the Constitution to be framed b:y the Constituent
Assembly of India and further that the Constitution
of India as from the elate of its commencement would
supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith in force in the United
State.
On the promulgation of the Constitution
of India on
January 26, 1950,
the United
State
merged in the Union of India and became Saurashtra,
a Part B State mentioned in the Constitution.
The
United State and therefore its component States since
then lost all separate existence.
It is not in dispute
that upon such merger all the assets of the United
State became vested in the Union of India.
On January 27, 1950, Kumar Shri Kr'ishan Kumar,
the elder son of the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri Surag
Vala died and thereafter on May 16, 1950, the Ruler
himself died.
On February 12, 195 l, the President of
India issued a notification recognising the petitioner
as the Ruler of Vadia with effect from May 16, 1950,
and he became entitled to the rights of the Ruler
which the Government of India had agreed to recognise.
These were the rights reserved to the Ruler under the
covenant constituting the United State of Kathiawad,
namely, the right to a privy purse, to the private properties and to the personal privileges, dignities and
titles.
·
1960
Darbar Shri Vira
Vala Surag Vala,
Vadia
v.
State of Saurashtra
1960
Darbnr
Skri Vi/"(1
Vala Surag Vala,
Varlia
v.
Stalt of Saurashtra
Kajmr J.
524
SUPREl\1E COURT REPORTS
[1960]
On .July ~. l 'J:l l, the Government of the State of
Sat1rashtra issued a notificarion declaring that as the
petitioner hacl succceclcd his father as Ruler, the village
Pithacli;i should, pending final orders be treated as
Khalsa or Khas village of the State of Saurashtra.
The petitioner was then a minor and his mother submitted a representation to the Government protesting
against the notification.
No reply was received to this
protest.
On \fay 2~l, 1952. the Government of Saurashtra issued a further notificai-ion which stMed:
"\Vhereas the vilbe:e Pithaclia in Vadia Taluka
of the i\ladhya Saura~htra District was granted, by
Lekh No. 194 elater! 5th July, 19-13, as Kapa! Giras
by the late Ruler .Darbar Saheb Suragwala of the
former Vadia State to his seconcl son Shri K. S.
Viravala in the latter's capacity as ;i carlet, in :ippanage grant: ancl Whereas, the late Ruler and his
eldest son Shri K. S. Krishna Knmarsinghji predeceased this second son Shri K. S. Viravala, the latter
has been recogmsed as the Ruler of the former State
of Vadia with effect from lGth May, 1950, by the
Government of S:mrashtra and the President of
T ndia as per Notification No. PD /MS /20 dated I 2th
February, I 'l'i I. of the Government of Saurashtra
Revenue
Department !Political) published in the
Gazette of Saurashtx:i :incl \Vhereas, pending the
recognition the Government of Sanrashtr:i harl ordered, by Notification No. PD/148/20, dated 2nd July,
19Ci 1, of the Revenue Department (Political) that
village should be treated as Khalsa village of the
State of Saurashtra anrl whereas Shri K. S. Viravala's
status as a• Cadet has ceased and the object of the
grant in appanar~e has terminated in consequence of
his being recognised as the Rt1ler.
Now, therefore, the gTant is deemed to have lapsed
and reverted to the former Vaclia State now integrated with the State of Saurashtra :it present known
as the State of S:iurashtra with effect from the date
of Shri K. S. Viravala having been recognised as the
Ruler of the former Vaclia State in succession to the
late Ruler Darbar Shri Suragwala of V;iclia State,
viz., 16th of May, 1950".
. ,.
. -
.
...
••
...
( .
• •
)
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
525
The petitioner again lodged a protest against this
latter notification but this time also received no reply.
On .March 9, 1956, he filed the present petition under
Art. 32 of the Constitution asking for the issue of a writ
cl irecting the respondent, · the State of Bombay, in
which State State of Saurashtra had earlier merged, to
withdraw or cancel the notification and to restore the
village Pithadia with all collections and realisations
made by it to the petitioner and restraining the respondent from giving effect to the notification.
The petitioner's contention is that the village had
been granted to him absolutely and
untonditionally
for permanent enjoyment from generation to generation and the State could not resume it so long as any
of the descendants of the petitioner was alive.
He
contends that President's recognition of him as Ruler
of Vaclia did not affect his rights to the village.
The
respondent's
contention i.s that
the, g1~ant was not
absolute or unconditional but it was to remain in force
so long as the petitioner continued to be a cadet of
the family and that as on his being recognised as
the Ruler he ceased to be a cadet, the grant lapsed
and the village reverted to the State.
It is said that
the Union of India being entitled to all the assets of
the State of Vaclia, the village has become. its property
since the date of the . petitioner's recognition as the
Ruler.
The question therefore is whether the grant lapsed
on the grantee becoming the Ruler. That is a question
depending on the terms of the grant. Capt. ·webb in
his compilation called "Political Practice in Kathiawad" has defined a 'Bhayat' as a cadet or the descendant of a younger br~nch of a Talukdar's family
where the estate follows the rule of primogeniture.
The grant was made by a document called a Lekh or
a writing to which was attached a Hakpatrak which
is a Statement of rights created by the Darbar to a
Bhayat.
Both these documents were registered before
the Agency.
The main portions of the Lekh were in
these terms :
"Passed by Shree Vadia Parbar Shree Suragvala
Bavavala,
to long-lived Kumar Shree
Viravala.
To wit:-the Rule of primogeniture (i.e., the system
5-6 SCI/ND/84
1960
Darbar Shri Vira
Vala Surag Vala
Vadia
v.
State of Saurashtra
Kapur].
1960
Darbar Shri Vira
Vala Surng J!,da
Vadia
v.
State o..f Saurnshtra
f(aj111r J.
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1960]
of Heir-apparent and cadets) having been applied
to this State, and yon being our Kumar (son) younger than our eldest Kumar, long-lived
Yuvaraj
Shree Krishna Kumar Saheb, you are, by this Lekh,
given, as Bhayat:, for permanent enjoyment as Kapa]
Giras, from generation to generation, the village
"i\lota-Pithadia'", a villag·e of exclusive jurisdiction
of this State, which is of our possession, enjoyment
and ownership, "·ith its village, Tai (village site),
and Sim
'~ith all their boundaries, fields, Vaclis,
Kharo, Kharabo, etc., i.e., with all the boundaries of
the said village, as Giras.
You may enjoy the
revenues thereof from the beginning of the Year
Samvat 2000.
-
..................... Giras as above having been given to
you as Bhayat, a Hakpatrak (statement of rights)
thereof, according to procedure has been given. The
same has been attached herewith.
You and your
heirs and successors may enjoy the same. i\lap and
Field-Book of this village have been maclc, true
copies whereof have been got: prep;uecl and given
to you''.
The lekh conferred various other dignities, pnv1leges, amenities ancl rights on the petitioner. Thus it
is stated that the petitioner's marriage will be celebrated at the State expense and the State "·ill arrange
for his education, that no duties or taxes will be
levied on the petitioner on account of his residence in
Vaclia proper, that the petitioner's complaint regarding Giras, i.e., the village granted, or any other civil
matter would be heard without: charging any court
fee and he would be exempt from personal attendance
in court in civil matters and that no process "·ill be
issned 'against him in criminal cases without the permission of the Ruler himself. All these dignities, rights
and privileges are appropriate to a cadet of the Ruler's
family, but have no meaning when applied to a
Ruler.
In the Hak Patrak it is stated: "In future even if
your descendants are joint or may have divided, any
one Bhayat surviving from amongst your descendants shall enjoy the Sudharo Giras and it shall not
. ,..
. -
"
(
.. '
..
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
527
revert to the State till any" one Bhayat from amongst
your descendants is living".
It also states that the
grantee will not sell or mortgage the Giras without the
permission of the State.
The grant and the Hak Patrak read together lead
to the inescapable conclusion that in its true nature
the grant is a grant to a cadet of the family and
the grant enures for his benefit as long as he remains
a cadet.
The expression "given as Bhayat" is not
merely descriptive of the grantee, but indicates the
true nature of the grant.
Nor do we agree that the
expression
"given as Bhayat" merely indicates the
purpose for which the grant is made but describes the
nature of the tenure.
The grant states in express
terms that it is given as Bhayat for permanent enjoyment as Kapal-Giras, vvhich means that the grant is
to a cadet as an appanage and continues from generation to generation as long as any of the descendants
of the grantee is alive. ,But if the g1·antee ceases to be
the younger branch and
becomes heir-apparent by
reason of the rule of primogeniture or ceases to be a
cadet or Bhayat for any reason whatsoever, then the
grant must come to an end.
This is what the rig·hts
and liabilities mentioned in the grant itself and also in
the Hak Patrak show; for example, with regard to the
right of succession, the Hak Patrak states that even if
one Bhayat from amongst the descendants survives he
shall enjoy the Giras and there will be no reversion to
the State.
This, in our opinion, shows that the grant enures as
long as there is a Bhayat. If there is no Bhayat the
grant lapses.
If on a true construction the grant is of
the nature indicated above, then no question of reading an implied term in the grant arises; nor is there
anv necessitv of determining whether the petitioner
ha~ become' a ruler in the .~ense in which his father
was a ruler of the Vadia State.
·whatever be the
reason for which the petitioner has ceased to be a
Bhayat, either· by reason of the death of his elder
')
brother or hy reason of his becoming a ruler in the
limited sense of the Constitution, he has ceased to be
a Bhayat and the grant being given as Bhayat for
1960
Darbar Shri Vira
Vala Surag Vala
Vadia
v.
Stale of Sauraslttra
Kapur J.
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
1960
permanenl enjoyment as Kapal-Giras, it has come to
an end.
Darbar Shri Vira
Vala Surag Vala
In that view of the matt.er the jJClitioner must be
Vadia
v.
held to have failed to make oul any infringement of
State"! ~"':rashtra his fundamental right by reason of the notification
Kapur J.
dated May 213, l 952.
The inf1;ingement which the
petitioner complains of is depri\ation of his property
oy State action and he bases his right on the terms
of the grant. If the grant is not an absolute grant
in the sense in which the peLiLioner contends, but is a
grant which Ly its \cry nature contains a defeasance
clause, then the petitioner cannot found his claim on
any violation of his fundamental rig·ht.
1960
Ap6l 14.
The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.
M/s. 1-IATISINGH i\IFG. CO. LTD.
AND ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
(B. P. SINHA, C. ]., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. \VANCHOO and]. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Industrial Undertaking, Closure of-Compensation to workmen
-Constitutional validity of enactment-Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), as amended by Act 18 of 1957, s. 25FFF(l)-
Constitution of India, Arts. 19\l)(g), 14, 20.
The question
for determination
in these
petitions relates
to the
constitutional
validity of s. 25FFF(l) of the
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, inserted by Act 18 of 1957, which provides
for payment of compensation to workmen on the closure of an
industrial undertaking.
The petitioners urged that the impugned
section (i) imposed
unreasonable restrictions
on the freedom to
carry on business
guaranteed by Art. 19(l)(g),
which included
the right to close
the business,
(ii) discriminated
between employers who closed their undertakings on or before November 27,
1956, and employers who closed thereafter and thus contravened
Art, 14 and (iii) also penalised acts which were not offences when
committed contrary to Art. 20( 1) of the Constitution:
Held, that s. ZSFFF(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
inserted by Act 18 of 1957, including the proviso and the explanation, is not violative of Arts. 19(l)(g), 14, and 20 of the Constitution and its constitutional validity is beyond question:
••
..
•
•
J
{