LexM. K. BALAKRISHNAN MENON versus ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY-CUM-1.T.O. ERNAKULAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
961
M. K. BALAKRISHNAN MENON
v.
ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY-cum-1.T.O •
. ERNAKULAM
October 5, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Marunzkkattayam Law-Whether the entire estate passed in the death
of the sthanaihdhar to his successors and if the entire property is liable
to Estate duty under Estate Duty Act, 1953-Interprel!ation of s. 7(3) of
the Succession Act. 1956.
One T who was the third Stanamdhar of a family, died in 1960. The
sthanam owned several properties in his personal capacity.
After his
death a suit for th; partition of the Sthanam was fi.I{!d by various members
of the Ta.rwad.
The appellant was appointed a receiver of fhe properties
covered by the third Sthanam of which the sthanamdar was the deceased
T.
The receiver was in these circumstances, treated as an accountable
person in respect of the sthanam properties.
Pursuant to a notice issued
under s. 55 of the fatale Duty Act, 1953, by the Assistant Controller of
Estate Duty, the appellant filed the neciossary accounts.
But he raised
the contention in the assessm::nt proceedings that according to s. 7 ( 3) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the deceased T was r:ntitled only to
!/I !4th share in the sthanam properties and therefore only that share
could be taken into account in determining the principal valu~ of the
Estate liable to duty.
The respondent, howeve·r, held that the entire estate passed on th~
death of the deceased and was liable to duty,
The appiollant filed a peti-
tion under Art. 226 challenging the assessment order.
A learned Single
Judge allowed the petition and quashed the assessment order.
The res-
pondent filed an appeal before a divisional bench which was heard by a
full bench and negatived the contention of the appellant and held that on
the dreath cf the Sthanamdar the whole of the Sthanam property passed
and was deemed to pass and the Estate duty was payable on the whole
of the propc:rty.
Dismi~sing the appeal,
HELD; (i) In Marumakkattayam branch of the Hindu law, the word
'Jvfarrumakkattayam· i:; inheritance through nephews and ni•;ces.
The
essential difference bct\vccn Marun1akkattayam and the other schools of
Hindu law. is that the former is founded on the r..1a1riarchate whi\~ the
latter i'-l founded _upon the agnatic family.
In the Mitakshara inint family,
the members claim their descent from a common ancestor but in Maru-
makkat1ay<im family which is known as the tarwad, th~ desc1~nt is from
a commo;i ancestress.
Tarwad is the name given to a joint family con-
sisting of males and females 'vho have all descended in the family line
from a common ancestress. [964 E]
(ii) Thre legal fiction created by the word,, "as if the Sthanam pro-
perty had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the
sthanamdar", in s. 7_(3) of the Succession Act, is meant for the puroose
of wadually ltqmdatmg the sthanams and distributing the sthanam pro-
p1~;ttes .among~t t~e . members of. ~he sthanees' tarwad and his oersonal
hen"S without mfrmgmg the provIS1ons of the Constitution.
Neither the
members of the Tarwad nor the personal heirs of the sthanee had any
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 972] I S.C.R.
interest in the sthanam properties. The first part of s. 7 ( 3) el early pro-
vides that the property which passes on the death of the sthanamdar is
the whole of the sthanam property held by him. The second part only
deals with distribution of that property. The Sthanam property held by
the sthanamdar has to pass from th1:! sthanamdar to the members of the
family to which he belonged and his heirs.
Legal fiction in the words
wh:ch have been set out do not cut down the sthanam propefty that
passes on the death of sthanarndar to a per capita share, the fiction having
been introduced only for determining the respective shares .for the purpose
of distribution to
th~ members of the family and the heirs of the stha-
namdar. [96& G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1137
of 1969 and 1421of1971.
Appeals by certificate/special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 29, 1966 of the Kerala High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 119 of 1965.
M. C. Chagla and M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellant (in both
the appeals).
A
B
c
S. T. Desai, M. C. Bhandare and B. D. Sharma, for the respon-
D
dent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment
oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.