THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. R. SARANGAPANI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of one of our learned brothers in Writ Petition No. 516 of 1966. 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 R. No, 143 -C, No. 6566, dated 31st December 1965.

(2.) In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Revenue did not seek to support the assessment on the basis of Sec. 6 of the Estate Duty Act, but the learned Counsel contended that this is a case which will come under the provisions of Sec. 5 as settled property passing on death. In any case the deceased had a life estate during her life time and that interest ceased on her death and, therefore, the estate shall be deemed to pass under Sec. 7, of the Estate Duty Act. In fact this is the basis on which the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty made the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that on adoption of the Respondent by Ramathilakam, whatever interest Ramathilakam had over the estate was completely divested including her life estate and that no property passed on her death and no interest also ceased on her death. Before dealing with these rival contentions, it is necessary to set out certain findings given by this Court relating to the validity of the adoption and the disposition made in the Will.

(3.) One Appasami Chettiar and another claiming to be the legal heirs of the testator Gopalasami Chettiar, filed Original Suit No. 13 of 1958, in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam, against Ramathilakam and the writ Petitioner herein. The Plaintiffs in that suit not only questioned the validity of the adoption made by Ramathilakam but also the right of the adopted son to the properties of Gopalasami Chettiar under the provisions of the Will. In the appeal against the decree in Original Suit No. 13 of 1958, a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal Suit No. 80 of 1960 held that the adoption was legally and validly made by Ramathilakam. It was argued before the Bench that even if the adoption was valid it should be declared that the adopted son could not be a legatee under the Will of Gopalasami Chettiar. This Court considered that the adopted son occupied two -fold position with reference to Gopalasami Chettiar, one as the adopted son of Ramathilakam the daughter of Gopalasami Chettiar and the other as the adopted son of Sethu Chetty. Under the Will the estate was directed to be taken after the life time of Ramathilakam by the putra pouirathi santhathi and failing that by her female children and failing that also it would go to Sethu Chetty and his descendants. The Division Bench held that this expression putra poutrathi santhathi in the context in which it was used would not include the adopted son and that, therefore as the adopted son of Ramathilakam he could not take the bequest under the Will. They then went to consider the question as to whether the adopted son would take the estate under the bequest made in favour of Sethu Chetty and his descendants. It was held since the bequest in favour of Sethu Chetty was a vested remainder that interest bequeathed to him was heritable and on the death of Ramathilakam therefore, the legacy would devolve on the adopted son of (1) Sethu Chetty in the result it was held that the adopted son could take the estate of Gopalasami Chettiar under his Will. The resultant position of these findings may be stated thus. - -Under the Will of Gopalasami Chettiar after the death of Seshammal the life estate will be vested in Ramathilakam and on her death, as a descendant of Sethu Chetty, the property will devolve on the adopted son of Sethu Chetty.