9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties covered by the arpannama, dated December 12, 1938, were rightly included in the estate as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Dedication and Reservation of Benefit: The accountable person argued that the deceased had made an absolute dedication of properties to the deity long before his death, without reserving any benefit for himself, and that the properties were directed to be used solely for Deva Seva. They contended that the right of residence reserved for the shebait should not invalidate the trust. The Assistant Controller and the Central Board of Revenue, however, found that the deceased had not entirely excluded himself from the properties due to the reserved right of residence, thus invoking the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. 2. Construction of the Deed of Dedication: The court analyzed the deed of arpannama, noting the conflicting descriptions of the properties. While the deed initially described two separate properties, it later suggested that there was one house where the deity was installed. The court emphasized the importance of considering the entire document to ascertain the settlor's intentions. Despite the conflicting descriptions, the court decided to proceed based on the revenue's finding of two houses. 3. Shebait's Right of Residence: The court examined the legal position of a shebait under Hindu law, noting that a shebait is both a manager and a holder of an office with beneficial interest in the debutter property. The court cited various precedents, including the Privy Council's observation that a shebait's right of residence does not invalidate the dedication. However, the court concluded that the shebait's beneficial interest in the property means that the settlor did not entirely exclude himself from the benefits of the debutter property. 4. Application of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act: The court referred to the principles laid down in previous cases, including Rash Mohan Chatterjee v. Controller of Estate Duty and George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty. It emphasized that for a gift to avoid the mischief of section 10, the donee must assume bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property to the exclusion of the donor. The court concluded that the deceased, by reserving the right of residence as a shebait, did not exclude himself from the beneficial interest in the property, thus attracting the provisions of section 10. 5. Conclusion: The court held that the Board of Revenue did not err in including the dedicated properties in the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Even if the deceased had not reserved the right of residence, his position as a shebait endowed him with beneficial interest in the debutter property, making it subject to estate duty. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, with the Controller entitled to the costs of the reference.
|
