CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS versus ALLADI KUPPUSWAMY

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 03-05-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
,• 
c 
t 
. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
!TZI 
CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS 
v. 
ALLADI KUPPUSWAMY 
May 3, 1977 
• 
[P, N, BHAGWATI, N, L. UNTWALIA ANIJ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.I 
£.state Duty Act, 1953-Sections 7(1) and (2) and 39-Scope of. 
Hindu 
Joint 
Fan1ily-Death 
of 
coparcener-Nature of interest 
of 
widow--Widow not claiminK partition during the life time-Death of widow--
Whether interc5t in joint fan1ily prop:erty 
passes-Liability to estate 
duty-
fatate Duty Act, 1953, SS,, 5, 6, 7(1), 39, 40(a) and (b)-Hindu Women's 
Siglu.1 tc I'roperty Act, 1937, Section 3(2). 
Construction of fiscal statutes-Duty of the court-Legislative intent 
reflected in the Acts must be given full effect to. 
Sbri Anadi wa~ a member of the Hindu coparcenary consisting of hl1nself, 
his wife (Smt. Alladi) and three sons. 
Shri Alladi who died before the Estate 
Duty Act 1953 came into force, during his life time had settled certain pro-
perties absolutely on his wife and had also declared certain other properties 
to form part of the joint family properties. Smt. Alladi died on January 5, 
1956, a fev.' months before the passing of the Hindu Su~cession Act, 1956. 
The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty valued her estate at a total amount 
of Rs. 7,25,527 /- including a sum of Rs. 2,02,271 /- being the value of her 
I/4th share in the joint family properties, on the footing that as Smt. AUadi was 
a member of the Hindu coparcenary, her interest in the joint family properties 
passed on her death to the other three sons and the value of this interest being 
l I 4th, the heirs would be liable to pay estate duty on the value of the I /4th. 
share. 
The respondent filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue 
OJ.nd <..:ontended that as Smt. Allacli died as a Hindu widow she possessed no 
coparcenary interest which could pass on her ·death; her interest merged with-
out any benefit accruing or arising to the coparceners and hence section 7 sub-
section ( 1) had no application. This plea did not find favour with the Board 
which upheld the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty as correct. 
The Board further held that the Hindu widow's estate created by s. 3(2) of 
the ffindu WidO\VS Rights to Property Act, 1937, wa-s an interest in property--
which cef<sed on the death of the widow attracting estate duty. Thereupon, 
the respondent moved the Board to make reference to ~he High Court of 
Madras for decision of the questions of law involved in the case. 
The Board 
referred three questions to the High Court under section 64(1) of the Act, 
but at thei time of the hearing of the reference, the respondent confined his argu-
ments only to the following issue, namely "Whether on the facts and in the 
circurristances of the case 1/ 4th share of the deceased in the joint family pro-
perties to which she was entitled under s. 3 of the Hindu Womens Rights to 
Property Act, 1937, was correctly included in her estate as property deemed 
to pass on her death under s. 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953." The High 
Court relying on the decisions of the Privy Council in Attorney General of 
Cey/011 v. Arunachalani Chettiar (1957) AC 513 and Gartside v. Inland Revenue 
Comn1issio11ers 1968 AC 553 held that the interest of Smt. A11adi was not 
a coparcenary interest which could have passed under s. 7(1) of the Act and 
as the said interest was incapable of .valuation, it was not exigible to estate 
duty and thus 
held against the 
Revenue and in favour of the .accountable 
person. 
Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 
HELD: (I) By virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1937 a·Hindu widow 
undoubtedly p-05sess a coparcenary jnterest 
as 
contemplated 
by 
s, 7 (I l 
of the Act and she is also a member of the Hindu copar~enary as envisa~d· 
by ,, 7 (2) of the Act f734 Bl 
-,22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19771 3 s.c.i. 
(2) Prior to the passing of the Act of 1937 a Hindu Woman had no right 
A 
t>r interest at all in a Hindu coparcenary. The Act of 1937 bettered the rights 
of a Hindu widow and conferred on her by s. 3 th;: same interest as possessed 
hy her husband. [727 A] 
(3) The words "the same interest as he himself had" in sub-section (2) 
of s. 3 of the Act of 1937 clearly indicate that the statute gave effect to the 
well-settled doctrine of Hindu shastric law that the persona of the husband 
after his death continues through his wife who is a surviving half and the 
B 
husband continues to live through the widow so long as the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.