YELUKURU SATYANARAYANA Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition restrining the Estate Duty Officer, Kurnool from proceeding to pass an order under Sec. 55 of the Estate Duty Act and assessing the estate of the petitioners adopted mother Lakshmi Devamma as one which passed on her death to the petitioner.( The petitioner is the adopted son of Ramaih Chetty who died on 6-11-1918 leaving his widow Lakshmi Devamma. By and under a will dated 6-11-1918 the deceased authorised his widow to adopt a son who from the date of adoption will be entitled to his properties. Pursuant to this authority, the widow Lakshmi Devamma adopted the petitioner on 9-12-1945 having performed the ceremonies of adoption and executed a registered adoption deed on the same day evidencing this fact. This adoption was challenged by revisioners and utimately the matter went up to High Court and was decided in favour of the petitoner holding the adoption and the deceased Lakshmi Devamma, adopted mother, as guardian of the minor was looking after the petitioner and his properties till he became a major in 1953 in which year she made over the properties to him and also transferred the houses which were in the name of her late husband. She has thus given charge of the estate of her husband to her adopted son and demanded and obtained a maintenance of Rs. 200.00 per mensem which was paid by the petitioner will the date of her death on 17-4-1959.

(2.) The Estate Duty Officer, Kurnool, issued a notice to the petitioner on 4-11-1959 under Sec. 55 of the Estate Duty Act treating the petitioner as a person accountable for the estate duty of the deceased Lakshmi Devamma. This notice is presumably under Sec. 53 of the said Act. In anewer to this notiice, the petitioner submitteed an application setting out the history of the family and his adopted father and that the widow had no estate or any other property which falls under the purview of the Estates Duty Act. Consequently, the provision of the Estate Duty Act are not attracted.

(3.) Having thus challenged the jurisdiction of the Estates Duty Officer, the petitioner filed the return forms giving an account of all the estate as it stood on 16-4-1959 for the information of the officer. In that statement the petitioner mentioned that the deceased Laskhmi Devamma had jewellery worth Rs. 14,100.00. After this return to the notice was filed, the Estate Duty Officer issued another notice on 14-12-1959 asking the petitoner stated that Lakshmi Devamma adopted him in 1945 to the late Ramiah Chetty; that she was in possession of cash, accounts and other properties and wanted Rs. 200.00 to be paid to her per mensem towards her expenses which he had paying regularly.