9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (3) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other house and certain agricultural lands. On June 26, 1955, the deceased entered into an agreement with his sons by which they leased to their father the Mayavaram Lodge, where, as before, he continued to carry on his boarding and lodging business, with only this difference that the value of this property was written off from the account of the lodging and boarding business and the deceased started paying a rent of Rs. 15,000 per annum to his sons. The deed of March 11, 1955, ex facie purported to be one of partition, but the revenue at all stages, being of the view that the Mayavaram Lodge was the self-acquisition of the deceased, took it to be a settlement and a gift of the property to his sons. On the ground that the deceased was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a right to continue in possession of the property as a tenant. What apparently is suggested by the tenancy is the statutory protection afforded by such laws to tenants from eviction. The Central Board of Revenue in its stated case has made reference to the partition deed of March 11, 1955, and we have ourselves looked into its terms. We are of the view that the subject-matter of allotment to the sons by the partition deed was the entirety of Mayavaram Lodge with all the rights that could possibly go into it. Nowhere is there any stipulation in the deed excluding from the scope of the allotment any aspect of any claim or right in or to the property. Great stress is laid by Mr. Swaminathan on the fact that the deceased never parted with posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted. So then, the next step is to find whether, by reason of non-exclusion to any extent of the deceased from the property or reservation or accrual of benefit to him by contract or otherwise, there is pro tanto passing on his death of the property. Mr. Swaminathan does not at this stage dispute that the deceased's sons assumed exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. But he says that at best for the revenue it could only be stated that there was subsequent non-retention by the donees and by that way non-exclusion of the deceased from possession and enjoyment of the property and the passing on account of it should be limited to that extent and it could go no further. Mr. Balasubrahmanyan has joined issue with it and contended f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion clause or there was a benefit to the donor in respect of it by contract or otherwise, such right or rights alone pass and will attract duty. That we think is the effect of the words " to the extent " followed by the non-exclusion and benefit clauses. On this view, we do not think it necessary to refer to the other cases cited before us on either side of the bar. Mayavaram Lodge was certainly a bundle of rights of which possession and enjoyment formed a part which, as we have observed, were not, subsequent to their assumption, retained by the sons of the deceased. To that extent, there was non-exclusion of the deceased. So far as the ownership of the property is concerned, there can be no question that the donees exclusively retaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
