TMI Blog1933 (3) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint. By her will, made in 1909, she demised premises No. 7/1, Marquis Street upon trust for Maurice for life, and thereafter for such persons as he should appoint, By a deed, made in 1917, premises No. 2/1, Russel Street, were conveyed upon trust, inter alia, for Esther for life, and after the expiration of five years from her death, as to one-sixth for Maurice for life, and thereafter for such persons as he should appoint. Esther died in 1924. By his will, made in 1929, Maurice demised all these properties upon trust, inter alia, to pay the income to his daughter for life. Maurice died in 1930, and his will was proved. But these properties were not included in the affidavit of assets filed by the executor. 2. The questions to be decided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d other property not subject to duty. The meaning of the word property is not defined either in the Court-fees Act or the General Clauses Act. Section 91, Succession Act, provides that: Unless a contrary intention appears by the will, a bequest of the estate of the testator shall be construed to include any property which he may have power to appoint by will to any object he may think proper, and shall operate as an execution of such power; and a bequest; of property described in a general manner shall be construed to include any property to which such description may extend, which he may have power to appoint by will to any object he may think proper, and shall operate as an execution of such power. 4. I have no doubt that property, over w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar to those in 11. Sch. 1, Court-fees Act. Probably in consequence of these decisions, the law in England was altered by statute in Section 4, Stamp Act of 1860, and in Section 2, Finance Act, 189i, and all such property was made liable to duty. In India, no similar provision has been made, as was pointed out by Sir Richard Couch in In the Goods of Julia Oram (1874) 21 WR 245. In this case, as also in In the goods of Olivia Hovenden George (1870) 15 WR 457 the learned Chief Justice followed the decision in Platt v. Routh (1840) 6 MLW 756. But in In re Lakshminarayana Ammal (1902) 25 Mad 515, Sir Arnold White, J., refused to follow the decision in George's case (1870) 15 WR 457n; but Oram's case (1874) 21 WR 245 was not brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
