KEERAMPALLI SIVASANKARAN Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the son of one O. Gopalan. Gopalan died in April, 1965, For the Estate Duty due from the estate of deceased Gopalan, on a certificate issued under S.46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Calicut (1st respondent in this petition), the Tahsildar, Kozhikode (2nd respondent herein in proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act effected an attachment of the amount in deposit in O.S. 19/70, Sub Court, Kozhikode, wherein the petitioner had obtained a decree for money against defendants in that suit on the foot of a promissory note. The amount as per the decree comes to Rs. 14,430.48. The Petitioner has filed this original petition challenging the legality and validity of the R. R. Proceedings resulting in the attachment of the decretal amount due to him.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the amount in deposit in O. S. 19/70 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, does not form part of the assests of deceased Gopalan and therefore, the same is not liable to attachment for the estate duty from the assests of Gopalan. According to him under S.5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, (Shortly stated the Act), the liability for the estate duty is only on the properties of the deceased and under S.74 of the Act the same is a first charge on the properties of the deceased. Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the separate properties of the legal representatives of deceased are not liable to the estate duty from the estate of the deceased. It may be stated here that the petitioner is one of the legal representatives of Gopalan.

(3.) For a correct understanding of the contentions in the case it will be useful to look into the relevant sections in the Act which are herein below extracted: S.2(12) defines who is a legal representative of a deceased person. It reads: