CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. MOOKAMMAL SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court:

(2.) ONE Draviam Pillai and Thayamanaswami Pillar were sons of two brothers. They continued to be joint even after the death of their respective fathers. Draviam Pillai had a wife by name Ponnammal. Thayamanaswami Pillai was married thrice. The first wife's name is not known.

(3.) ON the death of Kalyanasundaram Pillai on 13th July, 1959, in the estate duty proceedings, the accountable person claimed that the properties covered by the settlement deed belonged to a Hindu coparcenary consisting of the deceased and his two minor sons and that, therefore, the cesser of interest of the deceased, viz., 1/3rd share alone, should be subjected to estate duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that the settled property which was the subject-matter of the estate duty assessment had not been impressed with the characteristics of the joint family properties for the simple reason that Kalyanasundaram Pillai was not competent to do so. He was of the view that the persons beneficially interested in the settled properties before and after the death of Kalyanasundaram Pillai were different, viz., the Hindu undivided family and the remaindermen, and that in terms of Section 5 the settled property had passed in toto to the remaindermen. Alternatively, he rested the charge for estate duty under section 7 on the basis that there was a cessation of interest in the said properties on the death of Kalyanasundaram Pillai. The Assistant Controller valued these properties at Rs. 7,50,912 and treated them as "free estate". With reference to the interest which Kalyanasundaram had in the other properties set apart for the maintenance of Ponnammal and others, he made the valuation and added the said value in the assessment. There were certain further properties also which formed part of the assessment to the estate duty.