CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST Vs. SARANGAPANI CHETTIAR R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother in Writ Petition No. 516 of 1966 (S. Sarangapani Chettiar v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, ). The said petition was filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the appellant herein in R. No. 143 C. No. 6566 dated December 31, 1965. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition were these:

(2.) ONE Gopalasami Chettiar died on September 19, 1908, leaving a will dated September 8, 1908. Under the will, he bequeathed a life estate in favour of his wife, Seshammal, with reference to his properties. After the death of Seshammal, Ramathilakam, the daughter of the testator, was to enjoy the properties for her life. The will proceeded further to state that on the death of Ramathilakam, the estate was to devolve on her putra ponthrathi santhathi, and in default of such heirs, to her female descendants and in default of such heirs also, to her husband, Sethu Chetty, and his descendants. Sethu Chetty died on October 28, 1919, and Seshammal died in the year 1938. The writ-petitioner, who is the respondent herein, was adopted by Ramathilakam on October 10, 1953. On the death of Ramathilakam on November 4, 1962, the respondent as the accountable person filed a return under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in which he had disclosed that the principal value of the estate of Ramathilakam was Rs. 44,560 but contended that that was not liable for any estate duty on the ground that on his adoption on September 10, 1953, the properties had been vested in him and there was no passing of any property consequent upon the death of Ramathilakam. Apart from filing the return and producing the judgment of this court in A.S. No. 80 of 1960, the respondent did not appear before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in order to substantiate his legal contention. After considering the objections raised by the accountable person, the assessing officer was of the view that the estate duty was leviable under Section 7. He further considered that the principal value given by the accountable person is riot correct and, therefore, he completed the assessment under Section 58(4) of the Estate Duty Act. The respondent accountable person filed an appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty against this order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. Pending this appeal, he also filed a writ petition in this court seeking to quash the order of assessment itself. The question of maintainability of this writ petition was not raised and the matter was dealt with on merits by the learned judge. The learned judge held that on adoption, Ramathilakam the widow of Sethu Chetty, was divested of all her interest in the properties including the life estate she had in the same and that, therefore, she was not at the time of her death competent to dispose of the properties within the meaning of Section 6 and there was also no passing within the meaning of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act.

(3.) THE facts of that case, as summarised in the head note, are as follows: