9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956. His Highness Sri Bhojrajji Maharaja Saheb of Gondal (hereinafter called the "late Maharaja") died on July 31, 1952, leaving behind him the assessee and two sons, His Highness Vikramasinhji and Prince Shivaraja Sinhji. The late Maharaja had two personal accounts with the National Bank of India, London: one was a fixed deposit account and the other a current account. The said accounts were held in the joint names of the late Maharaja and the assessee. On the death of the late Maharaja, the bank transferred the said accounts to the sole name of the assessee. Interest arcrued was credited to the current account of the assessee. The said bank held in safe custody, on behalf of the late Maharaja and the assessee, 3 1/2% War Loan Certificates for pound 3,25,000 purchased by the bank in September, 1949, on instructions of the late Maharaja out of funds in the aforesaid joint current account and registered in the names of the National Bank of India Nominees Ltd. The interest on the said war loan was until the receipt by the bank of the advice of the death of the late Maharaja paid into the aforesaid joint current account. On receipt of advice of the death of the late Maharaja, the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said claimants do proceed to the trial of an issue in the Chancery Division of the High Court to enquire whether the said securities, funds and interest are the property of the claimants His Highness Shri Vikramsinhji Maharaja Saheb of Gondal (hereinafter called the 'present Maharaja') against Her Highness Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gondal (hereinafter called 'the Dowager Maharani') or are the property of the claimant Robert Hampton Robertson Mogill as Administrator of the Estate of His Highness Shri Bhojrajji late Maharaja of Gondal--Dhoraji (hereinafter called 'the administrator') as against the Dowager Maharani in which issue the claimants the present Maharaja and the Administrator shall each be a plaintiff and the claimant the Dowagar Maharani shall be the defendant and that a statement of claim by each of the said plaintiffs be delivered to the defendant and to one another within 6 weeks of the date hereof and the defendant shall deliver her defence thereto within 6 weeks thereafter and that the said issue be tried by a judge of the said Chancery Division and that all questions of costs (save as aforesaid) and all further directions be given in the said div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the account of the assessee solely and absolutely. The letter further stated that the authority given therein was irrevocable. The present Maharaja and the assessee addressed joint letters to their respective solicitors in London for obtaining the release of the funds and the securities from the High Court of Justice in accordance with the terms of the settlement. On January 24, 1958, Mr. Justice Danckwerts at Chambers, on both the parties by their solicitors consenting to the order, transferred the funds and securities to the Lloyds Bank Ltd. The Wealth-tax Officer included the face value of the said securities in terms of Indian rupees at Rs. 61,39,253 and the bank balance of pound 851 which worked out to Rs. 11,346 in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 on the ground that the assessee had become the absolute owner of the monies and securities by virtue of survivorship on the demise of the late Maharaja. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the inclusion of the value of the said assets but substituted the figure of Rs. 58,50,902 for Rs. 61,50,599. The Appellate Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the assessee upheld the inclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted in full as the same should be assessed separately in the status of an individual as per sections 3 and 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act." At the stage of the arguments before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, an alternate contention was put forward on behalf of the assessee that the Wealth-tax Officer should have assessed only 50 per cent. of the value of the joint holdings as belonging to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the additional ground as also the alternate contention. The following facts were admitted by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner: 1. The debentures and shares were acquired from the funds of the assessee prior to 1-4-1956; 2. They were in the possession of the assessee; 3. The dividends were collected by the assessee; and 4. The assessee had admitted the whole of the dividends as her income in her returns of income for income-tax up to the assessment year 1959-60. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the inclusion of the value of the joint holdings in the assessee's total wealth. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal holding as under: "For purposes of inclusion of any assets und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... English law, personal property is either, (1) a chose in possession, i.e., a thing which can be possessed and enjoyed and capable of being transferred by manual delivery known as movable property under Indian law, or (2) a chose in action, i.e., a thing that is realisable in action in a court of law known as "actionable claim" in Indian law. The right of a partnership to sue for accounts of a dissolved partnership is an instance of an "actionable claim". In the instant case, on the death of the late Maharaja when the administrator of his estate laid claim to the 3 1/2% war loan securities and bank balances with the National Bank of India, London, an interpleader action was commenced by the said bank in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division. The court by its order dated November 11, 1955, ordered the said bank to transfer the funds and securities into the court and directed the rival claimants to proceed to the trial of the issue in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice whether the said securities, funds and interest are the property of the present Maharaja or that of the assessee and pending such adjudication, it was ordered that no action be brought by any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conceded that the additional ground taken on February 8, 1964, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is untenable and that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the entire sum of Rs. 4,81,681. He submitted that 50 per cent. of the value of the debentures and shares alone was includible in the net wealth of the assessee. Sri Rajashekara Murthy, learned counsel for the revenue, urged that on the admitted facts the assessee has to be held to be the full owner of the debentures and assets and, therefore, their entire value was includible in the net wealth. The learned counsel for the assessee urged that the facts relied on by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, viz., that the dividends were received by the assessee and that the share certificates were in her possession, are not sufficient to hold that the assessee was the full owner. He argued that the dividends could not be paid to both the joint owners mentioned in the share certificates but could be paid to one of them only and since the first name in the share certificates is that of the assessee, the dividend warrants were issued in her name. He further urged that for unpaid call money both the shareholders would be lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
