9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged. The principal question which falls for consideration in these two appeals is whether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, any estate duty could be levied on the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties. On the determination of this question, naturally hangs the fate of the writ petition. As both the matters were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment, and these two appeals have been preferred with certificate granted by the High Court against the common judgment, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals. On the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri of Madra Math on 4th June, 1954, the Asst. Controller of Estate Duty, Patna, finding that no accountable person had filed any return, prepared a draft computation of the estate duty leviable in respect of what he considered to be the estate of the deceased Mahant and he called upon the accountable person to file objections, if any. The reply given by the accountable person was that Mahant Surinder Nath Puri was a mere trustee in respect of the estate which belonged to the Math and in the reply the valuation was also disputed. Since the accountable person who happened to be Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the order in the writ petition will naturally depend on the result of the appeal from the judgment in the tax appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has very properly addressed his arguments in the appeal from the judgment in the tax reference. Before we proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be appropriate to state certain facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal and material for proper appreciation of the arguments advanced. The estate which is said to have passed on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, consists of properties which were granted by Emperor Shah Alam II by a Firman. The grant was by way of Maded mash to Mahant Ayodhya Puri. The nature of the grant and also the nature of the interest of the parties and also of the Math came to be considered in civil suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 1932 in the Court of District Judge, Gaya. The district judge came to the conclusion that the properties were not the personal properties of the Mahant and the properties belonged to the Math and in that sense they are the subject of a trust. The further finding is that under the Firman by which the grant has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the correctness of any finding of fact, the High Court in a reference is not to interfere with the finding of fact by the Tribunal and the High Court has to proceed to answer the question on the facts found by the Tribunal. The finding of the CBR in the instant case that the properties are the personal properties of the deceased Mahant cannot, in the facts and circumstances of this case, be considered to be a finding of fact. The CBR in coming to its conclusion that the properties were the personal properties of the deceased Mahant had considered the nature of the grant by the Firman and also the judgment of the district judge in the title suit. The conclusion of the Board of Revenue that the properties are the personal properties of the Mahant on an interpretation of the grant and on a consideration of the judgment of the district judge is not a pure finding of fact. Any conclusion as to the true character or nature of the properties on the interpretation of the Firman and on taking into consideration the judgment of the district judge in the title suit is a finding on a mixed question of law and fact. The mere fact that the deceased Mahant had disposed of some of the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcenary) possessing separate property of its own, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect separately in respect of the coparcenary and the sub-coparcenary. (3) If a member of any tarwad or tavazhi , governed by the Marumakkattayam rule of inheritance or a member of a kutumba or kavaru governed by the Aliyasantana rule of inheritance dies, then the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply with respect to the interest of the deceased in the property of the tarwad, tavazhi, kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, unless the deceased had completed his eighteenth year. (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to the property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest only as a holder of an office or recipient of the benefits of a charity, or as a corporation sole. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the holder of a Sthanam is neither the holder of an office nor a corporation sole within the meaning of this sub-section." On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case including the Firman and the judgment of the district judge, the High Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
