PARVATHI AMMAL Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A property known as Mayavaram Lodge in Thiruchirapalli was included by the Revenue in the principal value o the estate, passing on the death of one R. Venkateswara Iyer on 6-4-1957. His widow, as the accountable person, excluded the property from the return, in view of the fact that by a deed dated 11-3-1955, the deceased had allotted the Mayavaram Lodge to his five sons in equal shares, retaining for himself the other house and certain agricultural lands. On 26-6-1955, the deceased entered into an agreement with his sons by which they leased to their father the Mayavaram Lodge, where, as before, he continued to carry on his boarding and lodging business, with only this difference, that the value of this property was written off from the account of the lodging and boarding business and the deceased started paying a rent of Rs. 15,000, per annum to nis sons. The deed of 11-3-1955, ex facie, purported to be one of partition but the Revenue at all stages, being of the view that the Mayavaram Lodge was the self-acquisition of the deceased, took it to be a settlement and a gift of the property to his sons. On the ground that the deceased was not excluded from possession and enjoyment of the property which was the subject-matter of the gift, the property was made liable to estate duty.

(2.) ANOTHER point which the revenue did not accept was that the partition did not amount to a gift. The question referred to us at the instance of the accountable person, is: