GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. MANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question is whether Ex. B3 is a settlement deed or a Will, Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is only a Will and not a settlement deed as it does not convey any interest in the property in praesenti . Learned counsel places reliance on judgments in Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madras II Madras v. G. Thiruvenkata Mudaliar Madras 1976 T.L.N.J. 325 and in Sadasivam v. Subramania Pillai 1986 T.L.N.J. 270. In the former case, a Division Bench of this Court had to consider a document, the provisions of which were as follows:

(2.) THUS, it is seen that in the document, there was no conveyance of any interest in the property. But there was a restriction of the estate owned by the settlors themselves whereby they declared that they had no power to alienate or otherwise dispose of the property in any manner during their life time. The Division Bench had no difficulty in holding that the document did not constitute a settlement or gift as there was no provision at all in the document transferring any interest in the immovable property in praesenti in favour of the settlee.

(3.) THE relevant terms of the document in question are as follows: Tamil