1969 (2) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the muafi grant held by the deceased, Narayan Rao, passed, on his death was property within the meaning of section 2(15) - as the muafi lapsed on the death of Narayan Rao, it did not pass on his death - When the muafi held by N lapsed and thus came to an end, how can it be said that it passed or changed hands -held that it was not property passing on his death

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the muafi grant held by the deceased was property within the meaning of the Act?
2. Whether the muafi grant was held by the deceased for his life only?
3. Whether the muafi grant held by the deceased passed on his death within the meaning of the Act?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The deceased held a cash muafi, and it was contended that it was not property passing on his death. However, it was established that a cash grant constitutes property, as per legal precedent. The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde affirmed that a cash grant confers a right to money, thus qualifying as property. Therefore, the cash muafi held by the deceased was indeed property.

Issue 2:
Examining the nature of the property, historical context revealed that the original jaghir granted to the ancestor of the deceased's family was later converted into a cash grant for maintenance. The reduction in the grant amount over generations indicated that the successor did not inherit the grant but received it through a fresh grant by the ruling authority. The absence of evidence supporting heritability led to the conclusion that the cash muafi was not heritable and lapsed to the State upon the holder's death.

Issue 3:
Regarding whether the muafi passed on the deceased's death within the Act's definition, it was determined that since the muafi lapsed upon the deceased's demise, it did not pass or change hands. The legal interpretation of "passes" in section 5(1) of the Act was clarified to mean a transfer of ownership. As the muafi ceased to exist upon the deceased's death and was not heritable, it was deemed that the muafi did not pass on his death.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the questions affirmatively for the first two issues and negatively for the third issue. The accountable person was granted costs for the reference. The judgment highlighted the legal status of the cash muafi as property, the non-heritable nature of the grant, and the determination that the muafi did not pass upon the deceased's death within the legal framework of the Act.