TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, fixed the principal value at Rs. 1,81,185. Two items, among others, were in dispute: (1) a sum of Rs. 77,227, outstandings due to the deceased in Burma in the course of his money-lending business and (2) includibility in the principal value of compensation in respect of a part of the lands notified in Burma and taken over. The revenue has taken the view that since the only restriction in respect of the outstandings was about repatriation of funds, there is no sufficient reason why they should be excluded in computing the principal value of the deceased's estate. As regards the right to receive compensation, the revenue repelled the contention for the accountable person that it should be considered as a benefit arising out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituted bad debts but, on the other hand, the accountable persons themselves in filling their return had deducted certain debts claimed to be bad and it was not their case that any of the foreign outstandings constituted bad debts. As to the marketability of the outstandings, the revenue at all stages has found that the only restriction in regard to them pertained to their impossibility of repatriation. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to accept the contention of the accountable persons to exclude the outstandings from the principal value of the deceased's estate. On the other item, it seems the deceased owned 4,530 acres of agricultural land, of which 656.71 acres were notified under the laws of Burma for being taken over. In respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d into compensation, there was no justification for the view that the nature of the property underwent a change on its conversion into money. We are of the view that this case is an authority only for the proposition that where third parties' rights or liabilities interact on immovable property converted into money, in respect of and for the purpose of such rights or liabilities, the nature of the property as immovable property is preserved, notwithstanding its conversion into money. In Fletcher v. Ashburner (vide White and Tudor's Leading Cases on Equity, 9th edition, volume 1, Page 325), also a similar proposition was enunciated. This is what we have in that case : " Where money is paid into court, the produce of real estate converted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during his lifetime. That right, in our view, is movable property. Property is no doubt defined by the Estate Duty Act but the definition does not help in deciding the question before us. Rule 7(b) of the Rules framed under section 21(2) of the Act shows that even the interest of a simple mortgagee in the hypotheca is treated as movable property for the purpose of the Act. The same provision further shows that only the interest of a mortgagee in possession will be considered as immovable property. That we think is an indication that, unless the deceased had a direct interest in the land in the shape of possession thereof, merely because under the general law he has an interest as a mortgagee in the hypotheca, such interest cannot be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
