LexCONTROLLER OF ESTATES DUTY, ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD versus KANCHARLA KESAVA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D F G H CONTROLLER OF ESTATES DUTY, ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD v. KANCHARLA KESA YA RAO April 4; 1973 [K, S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 897 Estate Du~ Act, 1953, Ss. 7 and 24-Partition-Allo~men! to ,wid~w bl meonbr of a Hindu undivided family property for life t11ne in lieu of her share-If liable to estate duty on her ·death, A partition was effected among the members of a Hindu undivided family by a registered partition deed. Under that deed, the widow of one of ·the members, who had a right to inherit her husband's share in the non-agricultural properties as well as the right to be maintained from out of the family income, gave up those rights, and i;n lieu thereof, the other members of the family allottc-<l to her share 25 acres of land to be enjoyed by her during her life time. On her death. her interest in the land ceased and passed on to the other members of the former joint family as provided in the partition deed. Therefore, the authorities under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, proceeded to levy estate duty under s. 7 of the Ac~ on the property allotted to her. On the questicm whether the arrangement in the partition dead could be consi- dered a 'disposition' within the meaning of s. 24 of the Act, and there- fore the value of the land allotted was exompt from estate duty, the High Court, on reference, held in favour of the assessee. Allowing the appeal too this Court, HELD : A partition of a Hindu undivided family is a mere adjust- ment of rights. It cannot be considered to be a tra'tlSfer and therefore, cannot be a disposition within the meaning of s. 24 of the Act. Hence, the case fell under s. 7 of the Act. [900C] Co1nmissioner of Jncome·tax, Gujarat v. Keshevlal Lallubhai Patel. 55 I.T.R. 637 and Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madras v. N. S. Gettj Cherti<r, 82 I.T.R. 599; 605, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ; Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1970. Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated December 24, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hydera- bad in Case Referred No. 28 of 1965. G. C. Sharma, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appel- lant. G. S. Rama Rao, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Coun was_ delivered 1Jy HEGDE, J.-This is an appeal by certificate. It is directed againsit the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a re- ference under section 64(1) of the Esta1e Duty Act, 1953 (to 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R. be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question of law referred to the High Court was : "Whether the value of 25 acres of wet land is exempt from levy of estate duty under section 24 of Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?" The material facts of the case, as can be gathered from the case stated are these - One Venkataramayya died in April, 1940 leaving behind him his widow and two sons, who constituted a Hindu undivided family. One of his sons, namely, Chandrasekhara Rao died in the year 1941, leaving behind him six minor sons and a widow. Subsequently, a partition was effected between the member:; oi the family on 16.6-1943 by a registered partition deed. Under that deed Kotamma, the widow of Venkataramayya, who had a right to inherit her husband's share in the non-agricultural properties as well as the righ.t to be maintain~ from out of the family in- come, gave up her right both in the non-agricultural properties, except the right to reside in a portion of the family house as well as her right to be maintained out of the family income. At the sanle time the other members of th11 family allotted to her 25 acres of wet !and, which she was to enjoy during her life-time and the same was to devolve after her death on the Other members of the former family as per the stipulations in the partition deed. She was · not entitled to alienate the property allotted to her share. Kotamma died on April 9, 1958. The authorities under the 'Act' proceeded to levy estate duty on the value of the property allotted to Kotamma under the partition deed dat<:d 16-6-1943 under .sectipn 7 of the Act. The accountable per5ons contended that the estate in question is not liable to pay estate duty as it came within the scope of section 24 of the Act. The departmental authorities, including the Tribunal,'· rejec11ed that contention. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the question set out above was referred to the High Court. The High Court has answered that question in the affir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.