9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot amount to a disposition under section 2(15) read with section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ?" The brief facts of the case which have given rise to the above questions are these : Two persons by name Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao together with their respective wives constituted a Hindu joint family. The two brothers constituted a coparcenary. Babu Rao died in the year 1945 leaving behind him his widow, Ahalya Bai. The other brother, Venkateswara Rao, also died in the year 1947 leaving behind him his widow, Kalavathi. On and after the death of Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao, it appears that the entire property belonging to the erstwhile joint family was in the possession of Ahalya Bai. Kalavathi had instituted a suit claiming her share of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, however, took the view that, on the adoption of the accountable person, he became a coparcener in the family and, consequently, even during the lifetime of Ahalya Bai, he had acquired a right to the property and, consequently, it can only be said that 50% of the family properties, which were in the hands of Ahalya Bai, passed to the respondent-accountable person and, accordingly, the Tribunal directed that half share of the property could be included for the purpose of computation of estate duty. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the aforesaid two questions of law have been referred for our opinion. Sri Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that as Ahalya Bai had become the absolute owner of the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such person subject to the obligation, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth; (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption." As can be seen from section 12, an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. This is, however, subject to the condition as provided in proviso (c) that the adoptive son shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him before the adoption. Even on the basis that, according to the erstwhile Hindu law, an adopted son should be deemed to have become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other relinquishing all her rights in the property in favour of the adopted son, still the Supreme Court held that, as the deed was not registered, the property continued to be that of the widow and did not become the property of the adopted son. The ratio of the aforesaid decision applies on all fours to this case. Sri A. G. Holla, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that Ahalya Bai had not become the absolute owner of the property before adoption and, therefore, the question of a child adopted by her divesting her of a portion of the property vested in Ahalya Bai did not arise. But, no such argument can be heard in this reference as the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that Ahalya Bai had become the absolute owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
