HIS HOLINESS SRI LA-SRI SHANMUGHA DESIKA GNANASAMBANDA PARAMACHARYA SWAMIGAL Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the accountable person for its opinion under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was not under an obligation to maintain his mother after he became sanyasi and, consequently, the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his mother on January 21, 1970, was not supported by consideration in money or money's worth and hence operated as a gift ?" *THE circumstances under which the above reference came to be made may briefly be stated.His Holiness Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who was the head of Dharmapuram Adhinam, one of the famous mutts in South India, which has been established for the propagation of Saiva Sidhantha philosophy and the literature relating thereto, was a non-dwija (Sudra) before he became a sanyasi. While he was the head of the said adhinam, he executed on January 21, 1970, a deed of settlement in favour of his mother registered as document No. 631 of 1970, by and under which he settled upon her 13 acres and 63 cents of nanja lands situate in Mayuram Taluk in Tanjore District of the value of Rs. 54, 456 to be taken and enjoyed by her absolutely. Later he died on November 10, 1971. On his death, His Holiness Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal succeeded as the head of the Dharmapuram adhinam. He filed an account regarding the estate of the deceased, claiming that according to the custom, he had become entitled to the personal properties of the deceased. In the said account, he had included Rs. 54, 456 being the value of the lands settled by the deceased on his mother under the aforesaid deed, but, however, contended before the AssistantController of Estate Dutythat no estate duty was leviable for the reason that there was no passing of the property on the death of the deceased and that the accountable person was only the holder of an office.

(2.) THE Assistant Controller rejected the said contention and included the sum of Rs. 54, 456 in the principal value of the estate which was determined at Rs. 7, 02, 268THE accountable person preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller wherein it was not disputed that the personal properties of the deceased had passed on his death and that by reason of the accountable person having succeeded to the properties, the present head of the mutt was the accountable person. However, it was contended in the appeal that the properties settled by the deceased on his mother could not be deemed to have passed on his death under s. 9 of the Act and, consequently, the inclusion of their value, namely, Rs. 54, 456, in the assessment, was not proper. It was urged that the settlement had been made by the deceased in discharge of his obligation to maintain his mother, and, consequently, the same could not be considered as a gift falling under the purview of s. 9 of the Act.

(3.) THIS civil death does not prevent the person who enters into an order from acquiring and holding private property which will devolve not of course upon his natural relations, but according to special rules of inheritance. But it would be otherwise if there is no civil death in the eye of the law, but only the holding by a man of certain religious opinions or professions." *In Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th edition, page 183, the position of a person who enters into a religious order with reference to his natural family is set out thus."Where a person enters into a religious order renouncing all wordly affairs, his action is tantamount to civil death, and it excludes him altogether from inheritance and from a share on partition.All property which belongs to such a person at the time of renunciation passes immediately on his renunciation to his heirs, but property acquired by him subsequent to the renunciation passes to his spiritual heirs. A person does not become a sanyasi by merely declaring himself sanyasi or by wearing clothes ordinarily worn by a sanyasi. He must perform the ceremonies necessary for entering the class of sanyasis : without such ceremonies, he cannot become dead to the world.Sudras: According to the orthodox Smriti writers, a Sudra cannot legitimately enter into a religious order. Although the strict view does not sanction or tolerate ascetic life of the Sudras, it cannot be denied that the existing practice all over India is quite contrary to such orthodox view and any such usage would be given effect to." *In Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran [1 8871 (10) ILR(Mad) 375, a Division Bench of this court has referred to the notion of a spiritual family as embodied in the Mitakshara law and to the special rule of succession applicable to the individual property of an ascetic. While tracing the history of the mutts in Tamil Nadu, the learned judges have observed as follows (p. 385)." If an ascetic or a hermit is a Brahmin, he is called a Yati or Sanyasi if a Sudra, he is called a paradesi, and if the Sudra is attached to an Adhinam, he is called a Tambiran, and if he is at the head of the Adhinam, he is called the Pandara SannadhiIn its original sense, the term Mutt signified the residence of an ascetic or sanyasi or a paradesi.