The said Hajee Mahomed Hussain and the respondents belonged to Cutchi Memon sect amongst the Muslims.
The assessment in question pertained to the estate of Hajee Mahomed Hussain Sailt, the father of the two respondents, who died at Bangalore on March 22, 1955 leaving the said properties.
The respondents claimed that Cutchi Memons at one time were Hindus residing in Sind, that some four or five hundred years ago they were companyverted to Islam like the members of another such sect, the Khojas that they migrated thence to Cutch and from there spread themselves to Bombay, Madras and other places.
As regards the orders and decisions produced by the respondents, he held that they would number assist the respondents as in numbere of them the question raised by them was specifically dealt with by the High Court.
Their case was that despite their companyversion, the Cutchi Memons retained a large part of Hindu law as their customary law, including its companycept of joint family property, the right of a son by birth in such pro perty and its devolution by survivorship.
The question was Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire property held by the deceased valued at Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated February 3, 1967 whereby it answered in the negative the question referred to it under s. 64 1 of the Estate Duty Act, XXXIV of 1953.
that the High Court of Mysore should have preferred the view taken by the Bombay High Court and followed by the old Mysore High Court in Elia Sait v. Dharavva, 1 and that the findings recorded by the Board were binding on the High Court.
that the rules of Hindu law, including the rules as to joint family property and its devolution by survivorship companystituted the customary law of Cutchi Memons in Madras and Bangalore.
Madras in favour of the respondents companytention as against a large number of decision of the Bombay High Court which limited the application of Hindu law to matters of succession and inheritance, the Bombay view was the companyrect one.
1 of 1965.
O.P. 188 of 1927 A petition before the High Court of Madras and the High Courts order thereon.
As aforesaid, the High Court upheld the respondents companytentions and answered the question referred to it against the Revenue.
In support of their appeals the respondents, in addition to the aforesaid evidence, also produced a partition deed of 1906 between one Hussain Hajece Ouseph Sait and his two sons, which inter alia recited that the said Hajee Hussain Sait and his six brothers had formed a joint family governed by Hindu law.
Further neither the Cutchi Memons Act, XLVI of 1920, number the Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act, XXVI of 1937, number the Cutchr Memons Act, X of 1938 applied to them.
6,10,100/ .
12,23,794/ was chargeable lo estate.
The different petitions and the orders thereon set out earlier, and ranging from 1909 to 1930 showed, 1 that the respondents family was in Madras till about 1930 when its members partly shifted their activities to Bangalore, and 2 that in all these petitions the stand taken by the members of the respondents family was that the family properties were treated as joint family properties.
That being the posi tion, there was numberquestion of the passing of the said properties to them on the death of their father as envisaged by s. 3 of the, Act or its being applicable to them or the said properties, the, said properties having companye to them under the Hindu Law rule devolution of joint family property by survivorship.
duty ?
The respondents filed two separate appeals, both of which were rejected by the Central Board of Revenue by its order dated December 30, 1961, and as aforesaid, at the instance of the respondents referred to the High Court the aforesaid question.
The Deputy Controller rejected these companytentions as also the evidence led by the respondents in support thereof and assessed 10 L120 SupCI/72 duty at Rs.
Their case was that only one third of the said properties, that is, the undivided share of their deceased father, companyld be properly said to have passed to them on his death and to be assessable under the Act.
K. Daphtary, V. Krishnamurthy, V. Srinivasan, S. Swarup, B. Datta, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dajachanji, O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.
47 of 1909 A petition before the High Court of Madras and the High Courts order thereon.
12,23,794/ was assessable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
O.P. 1 of 1930 A petition before the High Court of Madras and the High Courts order thereon.
The Judgments of the same High Court in Siddick Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait v. Ebrahim Hajee Abuo Bucker Sait 1 , and Abdul Sattar Ismail v. Abdul Hamid Sait.
25,778/ , and immovable properties at Bangalore and Madras respectively valued at Rs.
5,42,500/ and Rs.
2,05,996.41 P. on the basis that the entire estate valued by him at Rs.
1727 of 1930.
The said property companyprised shares and securities of the value of Rs.
O.P. 79 of 1928 A petition before the High Court of Madras and the High Courts order thereon.
On behalf of the Controller of Estate Duty, the following points were raised that the companycept of joint family did number apply to Cutchi Memons, and that a Cutchi Memons son did number acquire any interest by birth in the property inherited by his father from his ancestors, that in any case there was numberscope for raising any such companytention after the enactment of he Shariat Act of 1937, and thereafter of the Cutchi Memons Act, 1938.
2 These were produced to show that the rules of Hindu law were companysistently acquiesced in and applied to their family and the other Cutchi Memons settled in Madras.
1354 of 1968, Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 3, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in T.R.C. No.
The Board, however, rejected this evidence stating that numberweight companyld be given to it, since a custom followed by one, particular family would number companyvert that family into a companyarcenary governed by the Hindu law of survivorship, and dismissed the appeals.
The judgment of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
In support of their companytentions, the respondents had produced before the Deputy Controller the following documents as evidence of the Hindu law being their customary law O.P. No.
They also relied on the fact that the High Court had issued letters of administration to them although they had paid succession duty only on one third of the said estate.
T. Desai, S. K. Aiyar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for ,the appellant.
The Act came into force as from November 1, 1938.
