RAJENDRAN V R Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the accountable person, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 64(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

(2.) M. T. Veerappq Pillai, with whose estate we are concerned in this reference, was born in 1895 in Omandur Village, Lalgudi taluka, Truchy District, in India. He married Akilandathammal in India. In 1939, he left India for Galaha in Ceylon. In Ceylon he acquired certain properties and also married one Aravammal, a resident of Ceylon, on September 17, 1940, and through her, he had a daughter, Vijayalakshmi, and two sons, Viswanathan and Rajendran. He was earning some income from some estates in Ceylon. The income earned by him form the assets in India were assessed in his hands as a non resident. On July 23, 1951, he filed an application under the Indian and Pakistani Residents Citizenship Act, 1949, for registration as a citizen of Ceylon. But, this application was not granted till he died on March 7, 1965. However, his Ceylonese wife and children were later granted citizenship on the basis of the application filed by the deceased, M T Veerappa Pillai. He also left a will dated February 18, 1959 under which he bequeathed lifetime annuities of Rs. 1,000 each for both his wives, Akilandathammal and Aravammal, and the other properties in favour of his children. On his death, Akilandathammal filed an account of the estate of the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, and, in that, she claimed that the value of the movable properties in Ceylon could not be included as properties passing on his death on the ground that the deceased, M. T. Verrapa Pillai, was domiciled in Ceylon and in terms of section 21(1)(b)(i) of the Act, the movable properties situate outside India were exempt from estate duty. Before the assessment could be completed, Akilandathammal died and Rajendran son of the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai adopted the return filed by Akilandathammal and reiterated the claim for exemption as the accountable person. The Assistant Controller of Estate duty, Thanjavur, found that the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, had a wife and also owned properties in India and had been visiting India from Ceylon frequently and that he had also remitted cash to India and merely on the basis of the application for securing citizenship, it cannot be taken that he had abandoned the domicile of origin and acquired a domicile of choice. In that view, the value of the movables in Ceylon was included in the principal value of the estate and the duty payable was determined on that footing. On appeal by the accountable persons to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, he took the view that, all material times, the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, thought himself to be a citizen of Ceylon and this was also clearly manifested by the application made by him on July 23, 1951, and that the circumstances that he had a wife and other properties in India and had also been visiting India frequently would not establish that the deceased had not forsaken his domicile of origin. Finally, he concluded that the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, had abandoned his domicile of origin and had acquired a domicile of choice in Ceylon and, therefore, the value of the movable assets in Ceylon cannot be included in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased and directed the deletion of the value of the movable s in Ceylon. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal took the view that abandonment of domicile of origin cannot be a matter of assumption and that the circumstance that the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, had applied for acquiring citizenship, which, however, was not granted when he was alive, would not establish abandonment of connections with India by the deceases, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, and there was also no intention made out to abandon the domicile of origin. In that view, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased M T Verrappa Pillai, continued to be domiciled in India and the movable properties belonging to him situate in Ceylon were properly included in the principal value of he estate for the purpose of levy of estate duty. On the view so taken by the Tribunal, the two questions of law set out earlier have been referred to this court.

(3.) WE may observe that there is no dispute that the father of the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, when he was born, was domiciled in India and, therefore, the domicile of origin of the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, was in India. The question is, whether the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, abandoned the domicile of his origin in India and secured the domicile of choice in Ceylon. That would depend upon the state of mind or animus minuend of the deceased, M. T. Verrappa Pillai, apart from his mere personal appearance in locality in Ceylon. WE may usefully refer in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, . Though the question that arose for decision before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent before it was a citizen of India regarding his qualification under article 173 of the Constitution of India to contest the Legislative Assembly elections in Bihar. The deciding that question, the Supremn Court had to consider the principles governing the change of domicile. The following observations at pages 163, 164 would be relevant: