CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SHEILA PRASAD SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two references made by the Appellate Tribunal in connection with the proceedings for the assessment of estate duty payable by the accountable person, Smt. Sheila Prasad, can be conveniently dealt with and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE facts, in so far as are material for these two references, are that one Col. Ajit Prasad died on 1st September, 1971 and Smt. Sheila Prasad is his widow and the accountable person. In the account furnished it was claimed that, among other properties, orchard (6'75 acres) and land (2.34 acres) were properties of an HUF. THE coparcenary interest of the deceased in the HUF properties was shown as 1/6. However, the Asst. Controller found that the contention of the accountable person, that the orchard and the land were HUF property, was not corroborated from the land records as the names of Yatish Prasad and Col. Ajit Prasad alone were mentioned as owners. Accordingly, he held that the deceased had a half share in this property. On appeal, the Appellate Controller observed that there was nothing to show that in this property any other member of the HUF was interested or anybody else was disputing the deceased's right over the property to the extent included in the estate. In these circumstances, he confirmed the action of the Asst. Controller and rejected the contention of the accountable person. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, following its earlier decision dated 10th November, 1978, in E.D.R. No. 19 of 1977-78, held that the agricultural land in dispute did not belong to the HUF and that it belonged to all the coparceners who became joint owners of the bhumidhari rights as one single unit. It was held that the members of the family on whom such rights were conferred under Section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, became the separate owners of their shares as tenants-in-common and, being so, the conferment of such right on the member of the HUF could not be denied to him only because in the revenue records his name was not entered and only the joint name of Yatish Prasad and Col. Ajit Prasad was entered there. In view of these facts and on a consideration of the admitted genealogical table, the Tribunal held that the deceased's share in the agricultural land was 1/4 in place of 1/2 as taken by the authorities below and allowed the appeal accordingly.

(3.) THE Controller then approached this court and obtained orders requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer the first question as well for the opinion of the court. THEreupon the Tribunal drew up a further statement of the case and has referred the first question also for the opinion of this court (E.D.R. No. 233 of 1981).