THATHA SEETHARAMA CHETTY Vs. ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this appeal relates to the commission payable to the Administrator-General. The estate he was administering in the present case consisted in part of immoveable properties. Administration having been completed he has been directed by the Court to hand over the two shops in question here to the heir. He claims a 5 per cent commission on their estimated value under Section 52 of Act II of 1874, that Act being admittedly the governing Statute. The heir-at-law, the appellant, denied the claim and has appealed to us against the order of the learned Judge on the Original Side allowing it.

(2.) On obtaining letters of administration vesting the estate of the deceased in him, the Administrator-General took possession of all the properties belonging to the estate and has been administering them for over 10 years now. He sold some of them and paid off debts and claims. He leased out the two shops now in question from time to time to tenants and collected the rents and paid the revenue and taxes, and kept them in proper repair and generally managed them as an owner would. The properties were entirely under his control during the period of administration and he is now prepared to hand over the shops to the heir- at-law. The question is whether in these circumstances the shops can be held to be "assets collected and distributed in due course of administration" by the Administrtor-General within the meaning of Section 52, Clause (2) of Act II of 1874 and whether the Administrator- General is entitled to a 5 per cent commission on their estimated value.

(3.) Assets may consist of both moveable and immoveable properties. The definition of the word in Section 3 of the Act, last clause, makes this quite clear. Assets have been defined as "the property of a deceased person chargeable with and applicable to the payment of debts and legacies" by sale in In the goods of Courjon (1897) I.L.R. 25 C 65 at 73. The properties in question here are certainly assets of the deceased as they belonged to him. Section 52 refers to all kinds of assets including immoveable assets for there is no restriction in it as there is in Section 18 which speaks of "moveable assets". The shops are, therefore, assets within the meaning of Section 52.