TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board were justified in holding that the sum of ₹ 31,640 being the value of the N.G.P. Notes with accrued interest, should be included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass under section 13 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953? The relevant facts necessary for determining the above questions may be stated as follows: One Boman Shah Manekji (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) died on February 14, 1956, leaving behind his wife, 3 daughters, a daughter-in-law and grandchildren by his deceased son, Hoshang Boman Shah. The deceased in his lifetime, in 1938, purchased a house, bearing No. 134, Park Lane, Secunderabad, in the name of his son, who was then a minor. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Estate Duty Officer as part of the estate of the deceased. Taking the last point first, there is absolutely no doubt that these promissory notes, which are in the name of the deceased, and which, according to the directions of the deceased, were held in the joint names of himself, his wife and daughters, belonged to the deceased and that he died possessed of the same. Section 13 of the Estate Duty Act, which deals with joint investments, reads as follows: Where a person, having been absolutely entitled to any property or to the funds with which any property was purchased, has caused it to be transferred to or vested in himself and any other person jointly, whether by disposition or otherwise, either by himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to family life are different and where the social relationships are of an essentially different character. After noticing the cases of Kerwick v. Kerwick*, Guram Ditta v. Ram Ditta**, Shambhu Nath v. Pushkar Nath*** and Nagarajamma v. State Bank of India#, it was held by the Bench that, when a deposit is made in the joint names of two persons, payable to either or survivor, there is no presumption of advancement in favour of the other person and that there is a resulting trust in favour of the person who made the deposit in the absence of proof of contrary intention; that the doctrine of advancement is inapplicable in India and that the deposit, which was treated as the absolute property of the deceased depositor, should be paid to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife for ₹ 35,000 and which the deceased, subsequently after the purchase, had shown in his wealth-tax returns as his wealth. Several questions fell for decision; but we are not concerned with those questions. The only question that is relevant for our purpose is the one which dealt with the inclusion of the amount of ₹ 35,000 in the estate of the deceased. Answering this question, the Bench held that the decision of the Assistant Controller that the widow failed to establish that the sale price came out of her stridhana property and that she had no ostensible resources for the purchase of the property, and that her husband treated this property as his own in the statements of wealth, are not conclusive of the matter, when the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be stated that section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with ostensible owners, and is as follows: Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it: provided that the transferee after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith. After considering the legal aspects of the matter the learned Chief Justice observed: ...so long as the document s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The subsequent conduct of the deceased does not in any way affect a transaction, which is perfectly legal on the face of it. As it happened, the son died and the widow and the minor children were living away from him. In those circumstances, the deceased probably wanted to have control over this property and only gave the proceeds for their maintenance. In fact, in the statement of the case it is observed that money orders by the deceased from the rents of the house were produced by the widow of Hoshang. Even under the will, rents of this house were stated to have been paid to the grandchildren. Even the accumulated rents from which he purchased the National Savings Certificates were bequeathed under the will in favour of his grandchildren, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
