Skip to content


The Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Estate of Late Guruswami Mudaliar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectOther Taxes
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Petn. No. 1 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1965Mad99; [1965]58ITR64(Mad)
ActsEstate Duty Act - Sections 10
AppellantThe Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
RespondentEstate of Late Guruswami Mudaliar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....of vacant land which admittedly belonged to his wife. later he gifted the superstructure to his wife. the question that is sought to be raised is whether the gift is one which would come within the provisions of s. 10 of the estate duty act. it is contended that inasmuch as the deceased, till the end of his life, was living with his wife in the building in question it should be held that there were certain rights in him in regard to the property. we are, however, unable to agree. the living of the deceased with his wife in the building is consistent with their relationship and not because that he retained any interest in the property, namely, in the super structure which he had absolutely gifted to his wife. there are no words in the deed of gift to support any theory that he reserved.....
Judgment:

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. We do not consider that the questions propounded do really arise on the facts and the circumstances of the case. Let us take the case as presented by the department itself. The deceased had put up a superstructure on a piece of vacant land which admittedly belonged to his wife. Later he gifted the superstructure to his wife. The question that is sought to be raised is whether the gift is one which would come within the provisions of S. 10 of the Estate Duty Act. It is contended that inasmuch as the deceased, till the end of his life, was living with his wife in the building in question it should be held that there were certain rights in him in regard to the property. We are, however, unable to agree. The living of the deceased with his wife in the building is consistent with their relationship and not because that he retained any interest in the property, namely, in the super structure which he had absolutely gifted to his wife. There are no words in the deed of gift to support any theory that he reserved any interest in the property to himself. Under the circumstances we see no reason for directing any reference. This application fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150.

2. Application dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //