9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war (jodhpur), which now forms part of the State of Rajasthan. The family of the deceased was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The deceased became the sole owner of the said villages, having succeeded to the same according to the law of primogeniture applicable to the case. After the formation of Rajasthan, the jagirs were resumed on September 12, 1956. This led to the grant of compensation. The accountable person declared the value of compensation consequent on resumption of jagirs as Rs. 1, 13,502 at 80%, being the sum determined by the Jagir Commissioner finally as compensation value of the jagir villages. Before the Asst. Controller, it was contended that the jagir compensation should be taken to be in the nature of cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. The following question has been referred: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the compensation received by the deceased in lieu of his jagir and all other properties were liable to be included in the principal value of the property liable to estate duty or whether one-fifth share in any or all the properties is liable to be included in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased ? " Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the assessee, the accountable person, Bhawani Singh, has submitted that the jagir was undisputedly impartible in the matter of succession, but, once it was resumed, the property became joint Hindu family and only one-fift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the capacity of a karta of an HUF. It was noticed that the jagir of Barkana was certainly an impartible estate and the rule of primogeniture applied earlier. The court then posed the following question. "Whether a compensation of a scheduled jagir received by the assessee is the property of the joint undivided Hindu family or the property of the assessee as an individual ?" This court discussed the provisions of the Marwar jagir Act in para. 5. The same view was taken that the property in such circumstances would be the property of an HUF and not that of an individual. The other decisions referred to above by Mr. Bhandari, also support the view that the property is not of individual but of an HUF. Confronted with the above undi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
