TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during their lifetime. After the death of Kinhanna Naik, the properties were in the possession of Thayampanna Shetty, and after the latter's death, Ramayya Shetty was in possession and enjoyment. Ramayya Shetty died on June 30, 1972. Ramayya Shetty and Rajeevi were members of a kavaru (known as Denhi's kavaru) belonging to Bombrana family governed by the Aliasanthana law. Shetty belonged to a nissanthathi branch, i.e., a branch in which there was no female member below 50 years of age. According to a partition effected on July 8, 1950, some of the properties of the kavaru were set apart for the enjoyment of Shetty. Under the Aliasanthana law, a member of a nissanthathi branch has only a life interest in the properties allotted to him ; a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as prayed for. The State's appeal (A. S. No. 166/78) against the said decree having failed, it has now come up with S.A. No. 707/80. It is not disputed that Ramayya had only a life interest in the Mangalpadi and Kidoor properties. In fact, that was how the case had proceeded before the taxing authorities and the two courts below. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the additional counter-affidavit in the O. P. also proceed on that basis. And the only question, therefore, is whether Rajeevi (and the other plaintiffs in the suit) could be held liable for the arrears of tax due from Ramayya. The learned judge who referred the O. P. to the Bench has formulated the question in the following general terms: Whether a person who is a remainderman is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving the income from the lands in question during his lifetime. In the year 1969-70, he was the assessee. In the year 70-71 also, the assessment was on the income received by him. In view of s. 24, therefore, Rajeevi could be called upon to pay the tax only if she became a legal representative of Ramayya after his death, with his estate devolving on her. What then is an estate ", and who is a " legal representative " ? The estate of a deceased person is the bundle of rights, powers, immunities and liabilities which survive him. With reference to living person, "estate" means the interest he has in lands and other subjects of property; it designates property, real or personal, in which he has a right or interest. The degree, quantity, natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome receivable before June 30, 1972, had remained unrealised, the wife and children could no doubt claim it. That was a right which had accrued to the deceased during his lifetime; and that, along with the liabilities attached thereto, devolved on the wife and children. Rajeevi got the Mangalpadi properties as the legatee under the will of Kinhanna Naik. She got it not by reason of the death of Ramayya, because if the testator had bequeathed the remainder to anyone else, she would not have got it after the death of Ramayya. The death of Ramayya was only the occasion which passed on the properties to Rajeevi, not the reason. Similarly, she got the Kidoor properties by reason of the circumstance that she belonged to a santhathi branch of Denh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the properties vanished, with the result that no element of his wealth relatable thereto passed on to anyone also. It can, therefore, safely be said that Rajeevi did not participate in his estate and that she did not become his legal representative, in respect of both the properties. Under the circumstances, she cannot be held liable for the agricultural income-tax due from Ramayya under S. 24 of the Act. If support is required for the above view, we find it in the Full Bench decision in Balakrishna Menon v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. [1968] 70 ITR 548 (Ker). The question was whether agricultural income-tax due in respect of the income derived by a sthanamdar from sthanam property was, after his death, leviable from the person or persons on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative of Thayampanna Shetty. That cannot estop her from contending that she is not a legal representative of Ramayya ; and as pointed out by the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju, AIR 1936 PC 264, 268(2): " It sometimes happens that persons make statements which serve their purpose or proceed upon ignorance of the true position ; and it is not their statements, but their relations with the estate, which should be taken into consideration in determining the issue. Ramanathan v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 881 (Mad), cited by the learned Advocate-General, is not of much assistance. The facts of the case were these. Chidambara and Vridhachala were brothers, who became divided in 1942, and were thereafter being assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
