CHIDAMBARAM T R Vs. CONTL OF E D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the instance of the accountable person, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the accountable person contended that the adoption of a son, though by the widow, should be regarded as having been done on behalf of the deceased and his widow and on such adoption, it would relate back to the date of death of the deceased, thereby enabling the adopted son to become a member of the coparcenary along with his adoptive father and entitled to his share as the son of the deceased and that the authorities below were in error in holding that the adopted son cannot, under proviso (c) to section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, divest the estate vested in the widow, as there is no question of vesting or divesting of the property, for the introduction of a member into the joint family by adoption, at best may have the effect of merely decreasing the share of the rest of the members of the family. Strong reliance in this connection was placed by learned counsel upon the decisions in Sitabai v. Ramchandra, , Vasant v. Dattu, and Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe, . On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department submitted that on the death of the deceased, intestate, leaving behind his widow as a Class I heir under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the properties of the deceased immediately vested in her as the sole heir of the deceased and the subsequent adoption by the widow would not have the effect of divesting the properties vested in the widow as heir of her husband under the provisions of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, by reason of proviso (c) to section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Reference in this connection was made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti, , Punithavalli Ammal v. Ramalingam, , and R. Rajathy Ammal v. CWT [1987] 164 ITR 605 (Mad). LEARNED counsel also pointed out that the decisions in Sitabai v. Ramchandra, , Vasant v. Dattu, , and Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe, , are clearly distinguishable not only on the factual situation which obtained in those cases, but also with reference to the point of time at which the adoptions in those cases were made and that, therefore, those decisions would not have any application at all to this case.