- (1.) THIS estate duty reference pertains to the estate of the late Rani Urmila Devi Bishnu of Nepal. Rani Urmila Devi was the daughter in law of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi who died on 3rd Feb., 1952. Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, at the time of her death, had two sons, General Shankar and General Madan who were alive. Her son, General Bishnu, had predeceased, Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. Maharani Bala Kumari Devi also left behind daughter, Maharani Raj Laxmi Devi. Rani Urmila Devi was the wife of General Bishnu who had pre deceased Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. General Madan died on 20th June, 1953, leaving behind his widow, Rani Jagdamba Devi. He also left behind a mistress, Manik Devi, who had the status of an avaruddha stri, and her two minor sons. Rani Urmila Devi died on or about 29th Nov., 1957. It is the contention of the Department that Rani Urmila Devi was the owner of onesixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi at the time of her death and, therefore, the estate of Rani Urmila Devi should include the one sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi.
(2.) IT is the contention of the Department that Maharani Bala Kumari Devi left a will which was not signed. Under this will of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, however, no share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi is given to Rani Urmila Devi. The will, therefore, does not help the case of the Department. It was next contended on behalf of the Department that, on intestacy on the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, Rani Urmila Devi would inherit one sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. In this connection, it is necessary to note that Maharani Bala Kumari Devi and Rani Urmila Devi belonged to the princely family of Nepal. If the law governing the parties was the Hindu law at the time of the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi (3rd Feb., 1952), Rani Urmila Devi would not get any share in the estate of Bala Kumari Devi. The Department, however, contended before the Tribunal that the law of Nepal was Mulaki Ain. The Department, however, failed to establish before the Tribunal or at any point of time in the course of the proceedings what the provisions of this Mulaki Ain were. The Department also failed to establish whether this Mulaki Ain was applicable to the parties in question. The. Department also failed to establish that the parties were governed by any other customary law or that, under such customary law, Rani Urmila Devi would be entitled to any share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi.
(3.) IT was then contended by the Department that there was a family arrangement between the sons of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi including Rani Urmila Devi, her son, Pitambar, as also the widow of General Madan after the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi and during the lifetime of Rani Urmila Devi as a result of which Rani Urmila Devi got one sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. The entire evidence in this connection was examined by the Tribunal and it is also before us. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that any family arrangement was merely tentative and that it could be repudiated at any time. Under the terms of the family arrangement, the terms would come into operation only after they were signed by all the parties and a decree of the Court was passed thereon. The terms were not signed by all the parties. Nor was any Court order obtained in that connection. In fact, the letter dt. 2nd, 4th Jan., 1957, addressed by M/s Fowler and Co., who were the solicitors representing the widow of General Madan, addressed to M/s Crawford Bayley & Co. clearly sets out that the disputes between the parties relating to the property of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi were tentatively settled. The letter also sets out that the settlement is tentative only for the reason that it is open to any party to back out of the settlement at any time till the terms are signed by all the parties and a decree of the Court is passed thereon. In fact, the parties did have disputes relating to the terms of this tentative settlement. Ultimately, General Shankar, the son of deceased Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, was required to file a suit in the Bombay High Court, being Suit No. 48 of 1957 for a declaration, inter alia, that the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be directed to be distributed in terms of the family arrangement under the directions of the Court ; in the alternative, it was prayed that the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be administered by and under the directions of the Court and the shares of the plaintiff and other heirs of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be ascertained and declared and for various reliefs. This suit was pending when Rani Urmila Devi died. A final decree of the Court in this suit was obtained much after the death of Urmila Devi. In the final decree which was passed, there were substantial departures from the originally agreed tentative family arrangement. Under this decree, no part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi came into the hands of the executor of Rani Urmila Devi.;