CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. MADHUSUDAN DAS MALPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions of law have been referred by the Income -tax Tribunal, for our opinion, under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

(2.) THE above questions arise on the following facts. Seth Jagannath Das was alive when his wife, Premwati, died issueless on September 24, 1951. It was claimed by one of the accountable persons, namely, Madhusudan Das, that he had been adopted by Seth Jagannath Das as his son, a day prior to the death of his wife. After the death of his wife, Jagannath Das created a charitable trust by a registered deed dated March 17, 1952, under the name and style of 'Seth Mannulal Jagannath Das Hospital Trust' and transferred his entire estate with certain reservations for his residence and maintenance as an obligation on the working trustee, Seth Narsinghdas. After the death of Seth Jagannath Das, on October 7, 1957, the working trustee, Seth Narsinghdas, claiming to be the accountable person filed an estate duty return under the Act, showing the principal value of the property passing on the death of Seth Jagannath Das as nil. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept the return and applying the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act determined the value of the property at Rs. 23,33,410, as assessable to duty by his order of assessment dated April 3, 1972. Seth Narsinghdas, as working trustee, and accountable person went up in appeal. The Appellate Controller excluded part of the estate from levy only to the extent of the property valued at Rs. 15,46,368.

(3.) IT may now be mentioned that the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai : [1983]1SCR851 , reversed the appellate judgment and decree of the High Court and decreed the suit confirming the judgment and decree granted by the trial court in the matter of adoption of Madhusudan Das. The trial court had granted a decree that the adoption as son of Madhusudan Das, by Seth Jagannath Das was valid and in accordance with law. The trial court has also declared that Jagannath Das could not have created a valid trust of the properties, which he held jointly as one of the coparceners along with his son. The creation of the trust was thus declared invalid.