CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. S SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH as many as six questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, questions 1, 2 and 5 relate to the superstructure and the issue is the same as to whether the superstructure erected by the deceased on the site which he inherited from his father was his own property or was joint family property. The questions 3, 4 and 6 relate to the site on which the superstructure has been erected and the issue is the same as to whether the site is the joint family property or separate property of the deceased. The amount involved as estate duty is said to be a small sum less than Rs. 5, 000. THOUGH the ED Act is so longer on the statute book, the department has nevertheless chosen to seek the reference and we have heard the counsel for the Department and for the respondent.

(2.) THE proceedings relate to the assessment to estate duty on the estate of one N. Subramaniam who died at Madras on 28th November, 1977. He had inherited from his father a share of the property which included the site which was later allotted to his share after a partition among him, his brothers and sisters under a partition deed dt. 30th September, 196

(3.) OUR answers to the questions referred to us, therefore, are in the negative in so far as questions 1, 2 and 5 are concerned and in the affirmative in so far as the questions 3 and 4 are concerned. So far as question No. 6 is concerned, that question has to be answered against the revenue in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CED vs. N. Shankaran. That question is whether there is no disposition within the meaning of s. 2 (15) r/w s. 27 of the ED Act by the treatment given to the individual property of the deceased as joint family property. The apex Court has held that there is no such disposition in such circumstances. The Tribunal's view on the matter is the right one and our answer to the question No. 6, therefore, is in the affirmative. No costs. .