9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the settlement deed executed by coparceners under Hindu law. 2. Jurisdiction of the respondent to revise the assessment under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Settlement Deed Executed by Coparceners under Hindu Law: The petitioner contended that the settlement deed executed by Venkataramanan and Kamakshisundaram in favor of Saraswathi Ammal was valid. According to Hindu law, a coparcener can gift his undivided share in the family properties with the consent of the other coparceners. Since both Venkataramanan and Kamakshisundaram jointly executed the gift deed, each must be deemed to have consented to the execution by the other. The petitioner further argued that, after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act, a coparcener has the power to make a gift of his undivided share under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court, however, held that the Hindu law on gifts of ancestral property is well settled. A gift or device by a coparcener in a Mitakshara family of his undivided interest is wholly invalid and void in toto, except for small gifts to female relations on special occasions or for pious, charitable, or religious purposes. The court cited several precedents, including Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, Mulla's Hindu Law, and various case laws, to support this position. The court concluded that the settlement deed executed by Venkataramanan and Kamakshisundaram in favor of Saraswathi Ammal was ab initio void. The court also rejected the contention that Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act allows a coparcener to execute a gift of his undivided interest. Section 30 only empowers a coparcener to dispose of his property by will in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and does not cover dispositions by way of gift inter vivos. 2. Jurisdiction of the Respondent to Revise the Assessment under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953: The petitioner argued that the respondent had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, as the original order of assessment did not suffer from an error apparent from the record. The petitioner contended that the question of whether a gift by a coparcener of an HUF is void or not is debatable and cannot be determined by resorting to Section 61 of the Act. The court disagreed, stating that the power under Section 61 can be invoked where the earlier order of assessment suffers from an error apparent from the record. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, which held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something that can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning. The court found that the respondent committed a glaring and palpable error in treating the settlement as valid and excluding the value of the lands covered by the settlement deed in computing the value of the estate of Kamakshisundaram. The court concluded that there cannot be any two opinions on the question of whether a gift executed by a coparcener of his undivided interest is valid, void, or voidable. The error was so glaring and palpable that it needed to be rectified the moment the mistake was realized by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was justified in exercising his powers under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act and revising the earlier order of assessment. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the revised order of assessment passed by the respondent, including the value of one-half share of the agricultural lands covered by the settlement deed of 1959 in the estate of Kamakshisundaram. The dismissal was without costs.
|
