LexTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, MYSORE BANGALORE versus HAJI ABDUL SATTAR SAIT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
231 A THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, MYSORE~ BANGALORE v. HAJI ABDUL SAITAR SAIT & ORS. April 19, 1972 B (S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DuA AND c D E H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Estate Duty Act (34 of 1953- ss. 3 and 64(i)---Cutchi Memon family -Father dying leaving properties-Whether sons Inherited the property or the property devolved on snns by survivorship-Applicability of Hindu Law of son's right by birth in joint family property to Cute/ii Memons. The Cutchi Memons bad migrated from Cutcb to Bombay, Madras and_ other places. They were originally Hindus and were converted to Islam three or four hundred years ago. The family of the responde\}ts originally settled in Madras, and between 1928 and 1930, went over to Mysore and settled down in the Bangalore Civil Station. The father of the respondents died in 1955 at Bangalore lea\-ing properties which were sought to be charged to estate duty. The respondents. claimed that they were governed by Hindu Law as their customary law including its con- cepts o( joint family property, the right of a son by birth in such property and its devolution by survivorship and· that therefore, only one-third of the said properties, that is, the undivided share of their deceased father could be properly said to have passed to them on his death and be assess- able under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Deputy Controller of Estate Duty helcl that as there was only one solitary decision of the Madras High Court in favour of the respOndents' contentions as againsl a Ia:rge ntitttl)er of decisions of the Bombay ltigb Court which limited the application of Hindu Law to matters of succession and inheritance only, the Bombay· view was the correct one. On a reference to the High Court, the High Court upheld the respon- dents' contentions. Dismissing t]je appeal to this Court, F HELD : ( 1) According to Mohamedan Law a person converting to- Mohamedanism changes not anly Iris religion but also his personal law. This rule, however, applied only to cases of individual conversions ano not to wholesale conversions such as Khojas and Cutchi Memons. In such cases of wholesale conversion of a caste or community the converts might retain a part of their original personal law according to the hither- to held habits, traditions and the surroundings. [23 6Cl G (2) The view finally settled in Bombay is that the application of Hindu Law to Cutcbi Memons is now restricted to cases of succession and inheri- tance as it would apply in the case of an intestate, and separate, Hindu, possessed of self-acquired property. [241Hl Haji Cosman v. Haroon Saleh Mahomed, (1923) I.L .. R. 47 Born. 369, referred to. H (3) But the Madras view, supported by tbe records of several cases in the Madras High Court, is that Cutchi Memons, who had settled down in Madras, had regulated their affair.., since they !\ad settled down amidst / 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 1 S.C.R. Hindus, accordip..g to Hindu La1. not only in matters of succession and inheritance, but also in matters ol u1·-.:ir propefty including the Hindu con· cepts of coparcenary and survivorship. [246C-DJ Ha;ee Aboo Bucker Sait v. Ebrahim Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait, A.LR. 1921 Mad. 571; Abdul Sattar Ismail .. Abdul llaniid Sait, A.LR. 1944 Mad. 504; Abdul Hameed Sait v. The Provident Investment Company Ltd., l.L.R. Jl9541 Mad. 939 (F.B.); Abdurahiman v. Avoomma, A.l.R. 1956 Mad. 244 'md Begum NoorbGnu v. Deputy Custod;an General of .Evacuee Property, A.LR. 1965 S.C. 1937, referrecl to. ( 4) The question as to which customary law is applicable turns •really on the consideration as to which law a community decides to have for regulating succession to 1the properties of its members depending upon amongst whom they had settled down and the surroundings and traditions ·they found in that place. That being the position, there is no question of ·preferring one view to another in the present case as between the Madras ·and Bombay views, becaU'e the Madras view applies to the respondents. [24SHJ Abdulruhim Haji Ismail Mithu v. Halimabai, (1915-1916) L.R., 43 'I.A. 35 and Khatubai v. Mohamad Haii Abu, (1_'122-19231 L.R., 50 .I.A. 108, applied. A B c Elia Sait "· D,haranayya, 10 Mys. L.J., 33, disapproved. D '(si Moreover, if such preference is expressed by the Court now, it ·may have the result of upsetting a number of titles settled on the basis .of the decisions uf each o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.