K. Iswara Wariyyar Vs. Union of India
Grover, J. 1. This appeal (C.A. 1339/69) from a judgment of the Kerala High Court has been brought by certificate but that has been found to be defective for want of reasons and therefore has to be revoked. However, a petition for special leave was filed and the same was granted. In that appeal (C.A. 1422/71) the main point which arises for consideration relating to the passing of Sathanam property is covered by the judgment of this Court in C.A. 1421/71 (M. K. Balakrishna Menon v. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-Cum-Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam) ((1971) 2 SCC 909 ) delivered today. 2. The only other point relates to the right which the Sthanamdar had as an ex officio "Uralan" (trustee) of the Devaswom property to live and make use of the two houses in Koduvayoor in a compound which belonged to the Devaswom section of the Sathanam. The Revenue sought to include the value of that right also in the estate of the deceased Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty. The valuation made by the Controller, Estate Duty, in respect of the aforesaid property came to Rs. 30, 000-. The learned for the Revenue has quite properly conceded that the right which the Sthanamdar had of staying and residing in the two houses in his capacity as an ex officio "Uralan" of the Devaswom could not be included in the valuation of the assets of the Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty.
1[ds]2. The only other point relates to the right which the Sthanamdar had as an ex officio "Uralan" (trustee) of the Devaswom property to live and make use of the two houses in Koduvayoor in a compound which belonged to the Devaswom section of the Sathanam. The Revenue sought to include the value of that right also in the estate of the deceased Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty. The valuation made by the Controller, Estate Duty, in respect of the aforesaid property came to Rs. 30,. The learned for the Revenue has quite properly conceded that the right which the Sthanamdar had of staying and residing in the two houses in his capacity as an ex officio "Uralan" of the Devaswom could not be included in the valuation of the assets of the Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty.
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
Grover, J. 1. This appeal (C.A. 1339/69) from a judgment of the Kerala High Court has been brought by certificate but that has been found to be defective for want of reasons and therefore has to be revoked. However, a petition for special leave was filed and the same was granted. In that appeal (C.A. 1422/71) the main point which arises for consideration relating to the passing of Sathanam property is covered by the judgment of this Court in C.A. 1421/71 (M. K. Balakrishna Menon v. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-Cum-Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam) ((1971) 2 SCC 909 ) delivered today. 2. The only other point relates to the right which the Sthanamdar had as an ex officio "Uralan" (trustee) of the Devaswom property to live and make use of the two houses in Koduvayoor in a compound which belonged to the Devaswom section of the Sathanam. The Revenue sought to include the value of that right also in the estate of the deceased Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty. The valuation made by the Controller, Estate Duty, in respect of the aforesaid property came to Rs. 30, 000-. The learned for the Revenue has quite properly conceded that the right which the Sthanamdar had of staying and residing in the two houses in his capacity as an ex officio "Uralan" of the Devaswom could not be included in the valuation of the assets of the Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
2. The only other point relates to the right which the Sthanamdar had as an ex officio "Uralan" (trustee) of the Devaswom property to live and make use of the two houses in Koduvayoor in a compound which belonged to the Devaswom section of the Sathanam. The Revenue sought to include the value of that right also in the estate of the deceased Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty. The valuation made by the Controller, Estate Duty, in respect of the aforesaid property came to Rs. 30,. The learned for the Revenue has quite properly conceded that the right which the Sthanamdar had of staying and residing in the two houses in his capacity as an ex officio "Uralan" of the Devaswom could not be included in the valuation of the assets of the Sthanamdar for the purpose of assessment of estate duty.
