9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that s. 10 of the Estate Duty Act was attracted. He, therefore, included the value of the said properties under s. 10 in the principal value of the estate. On appeal the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty concurred with him. 2. Before us the learned counsel for the accountable persons contended that the provisions of s. 10 of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the instant case. He pointed out that on a proper construction of the settlement deed it would be seen that there was no obligation on the part of the sons to maintain their mother, that there was no charge created in the settlement deed for the maintenance of the mother, that at best it was only a pious wish or a desire on the part of the deceased that his wife should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the authorities below have valued both the and the building and that the same is erroneous. He further submitted that the deceased was running a fresh school in the old building. In these circumstances he submitted that the valuation made including the land was excessive and arbitrary. 3. On behalf of the Revenue the learned departmental representative supported the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that the mother was also named as a settlee along with her sons in the deed of settlement and therefore it should be held that there was a charge created on the properties for the maintenance of the mother. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Kikabhai Samsudin vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Guj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther jointly as they now do and maintain their mother as members (M. Balakrishna Naidu) of one family; when they desire to make a partition among themselves, after seven years as aforesaid, they (the settlees 1 to herein) shall divide the properties described below in four equal shares taking the share each as mentioned above." Under s. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. This is a statutory right provided to a Hindu wife. There is nothing on record to indicate that the wife of Sri Balakrishna Naidu forfeited her above right as provided in sub-s. (3) of s. 18 on the execution of the aforesaid settlement-deed. It is, therefore, not possible in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. That was a case dealing with a Mohomedan governed by the Mohomedan law. There was no statutory obligation in that case as provided in s. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the inclusion of the value of the above impugned properties in the principal value under s. 10 of the Estate Duty Act is not correct and we accordingly delete the same. 5. As regards the valuation of the property No. 22A, Srinivasa Perumal Sannadhi Street, Madras, we find that the property is an old Madras-terraced house. It was admittedly used as a night school. According to the Department this land is supposed to be taken on lease for 99 years. The learned counsel for the accountable persons denied the lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
