9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishnu who had pre-deceased Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. General Madan died on June 20, 1953, leaving behind his widow, Rani Jagdamba Devi. He also left behind a mistress, Manik Devi, who had the status of an avaruddha stri, and her two minor sons. Rani Urmila Devi died on or about November 29, 1957. It is the contention of the Department that Rani Urmila Devi was the owner of one sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi at the time of her death and, therefore, the estate of Rani Urmila Devi should include the one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. It is the contention of the Department that Maharani Bala Kumari Devi left a will which was not signed. Under this will of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi and during the lifetime of Rani Urmila Devi as a result of which Rani Urmila Devi got one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. The entire evidence in this connection was examined by the Tribunal and it is also before us. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that any family arrangement was merely tentative and that it could be repudiated at any time. Under the terms of the family arrangement, the terms would come into operation only after they were signed by all the parties and a decree of the court was passed thereon. The terms were not signed by all the parties. Nor was any court order obtained in that connection. In fact, the letter dated January 2, 4, 1957, add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi came into the hands of the executor of Rani Urmila Devi. Moreover, Manik Devi, the avaruddha stri of General Madan and her two minor children, had not agreed to the proposed family arrangement at all and were disputing such a family settlement. None of the parties had signed the family settlement. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no binding family settlement at the time of the death of Rani Urmila Devi. The Tribunal has also pointed out that, apart from the fact that Manik Devi and her sons had not agreed to the provisional family settlement, her sons were minors at the time when the provisional family arrangement was proposed. The fam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi at the time of the death of Rani Urmila. It is also pertinent to note that, under the consent decree, which was finally arrived at in the suit after the death of Rani Urmila Devi, there have been substantial changes in the arrangement which is arrived at, particularly in relation to property going to the share of Manik Devi and her two minor children. Under this decree, no part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi comes to the share of Rani Urmila Devi and/or her executors. In these circumstances, the following two questions which have been referred to us for decision under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are answered as follows : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
