Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 184 1961 SLD 184 (1961) 41 ITR 1

C.R. No. 18 OF 1958, 21-Jul-60
CHANDRA REDDY, C.J. AND SHARFUDDIN AHMED, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Kanyalal Motilal Karva

v.

Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 39 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Valuation of interest in coparcenary property ceasing on death - Whether where a Hindu Family migrates from one part of country to another they carry with them their personal law in matters of succession etc. and it is on person who asserts that such a Hindu has adopted new local customs to affirmatively prove it - Held, yes - Deceased, his wife and accountable person were members of a family governed by Benaras School of Hindu Mitakshara Law whereunder mother was entitled to a share on partition between father and sons - Whether since there was no trace of renunciation of personal law by family of accountable person on their migration to Hyderabad, deceased's share in joint family property had to be taken as 1/3rd under section 39 and not Β½ - Held, yes FACTS The deceased was the member of a family governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Mitakshara Law. The accountable person filed a statement of account declaring an estate. The assessing authority, however, determined the principal value of the deceased's estate at a higher amount. The accountable person objected to the valuation of the cesser of interest which the deceased had in the coparcenary property and submitted that the cesser of interest of the deceased was to be taken at 1/3 since the deceased, his wife and the accountable person were each entitled to one share. The Assistant Controller did not accept the contention of the accountable person on the ground that the mother was not entitled to a share on partition between the father and sons on two grounds, viz., (i) that the family due to its long stay in Hyderabad State was deemed to have adopted the local customs and, as such, was governed by the Madras school of Mitakshara Hindu law, and (ii) that according to the custom prevailing among Marwadis, the mother was not entitled to a share on partition between the father and the sons. Assessee's appeal to the Central Board of Revenue also failed. On reference: HELD It is well established that where a Hindu family migrates from one part of the country to another, prima facie, they carry with them their personal law in regard to matters of succession, etc. It is…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492