If the sum of R.S 2 lakhs was liable to be assessed to duty whether the said amount companyld be aggregated with the other properties or should be assessed as an estate by itself?
After the decision of the Board, the following questions of law were referred to the High Court.
On the terms of the accident policy, the Board was of the view that the deceased did have the power of disposition over the insurance money both by the exercise of the power of numberination under the policy and also independently by the exercise of any testamentary power.
Before the Board, an Agreement in writing dated 19th August, 1976 between A. Muthiah and Pethachi.
Whether the share of the deceased Chindambaram Chettiar in the property of the joint family at the time of his death was one half or one third of the property?
On the point relating to the exact quantum of the deceaseds interest in companyarcenary property, the Board accepted the genuineness of the Muri.
2086 of 1974 and 67 of 1975 From the Judgment and order dated 20th September, 1973 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No .
67 of 1975 is by the revenue.
The High Court by the judgment under appeal answered the first question in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person and the second and third questions were answered against the revenue and in favour of the accountable person.
2086 of 1974 is by accountable persons and Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrived by the answer against the first question, the ac companyntable person has preferred the appeal being appeal No.
Subsequently his second son, also called Pethachi, was born in 1933, with whom the deceased was joint throughout his life.
The accountable persons are the sons of one late M. Chindermbara Chettiar hereinafter called the deceased.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal No.
It was urged before the Deputy Controller that the adoption of M. Ct.
The judgment under appeal is reported in 94 I.T.R. at page 323.
As in respect of the deceaseds interest in the companyarcenary property, which had to be included in the dutiable estate, the Deputy Controller took the view that such interest extended to 1/2 share of the joint properties on the basis that the deceased and his second son Pethachi were alone entitled as companyarceners to the said properties.
Rarnakrishna, Mohan Parasaran and Mrs. Janaki Rama chandran.
for the Appellants in C.A. No.
C. Manchande, Dr. Gauri Shankar, K.P. Bhatnagar and Miss A. Subhashini, for the Appellant in C.A. No.
The deceased was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family.
2086 of 1974.
He held further that the insurance money of R.S 2 lakhs was property which the deceased was companypetent to dispose of by will.
In the assessment under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 hereinafter called the Act , the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty was of the view that the personal accident insurance money of R.S 2 lakhs paid by the Insurance Company should be charged to estate duty and further that it had to be aggregated with the rest of the properties passing on the deceaseds death.
Under the terms of the said policy which was to be in force for one month, the Insurance Company had agreed that if at any time during the currency of the said policy, the deceased should sustain any accident resulting in any injury or injury leading to his death, then, the Insurance Company undertook to pay to the assured or to the legal representative of the assured in case of the assureds death, such sum as might be appropriate in the Table of Benefits appended to the Policy.
Muthiah who had been adopted away from this family in 1931 was nevertheless entitled, as on the date of the deceaseds death, to an equal interest in the deceaseds family properties, so that the quantum of the deceaseds companyarcenary interest was numberone half but only one third of the total value of the family properties.
67 of 1975.
He gave his first son Muthiah, in adoption to his divided paternal uncle Pethachi Chettiar, and adoption ceremony was held on 7th June, 1931.
Muthiah in 1931 was on the basis that numberwithstanding his adoption into another family, M. Ct.
67 of 1975 and for the Respondent in C.A. No.
2086 of 1974 and on the certificate granted by the High Court and on the subsequent two questions, the revenue obtained the certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court which is appeal No.
2086 of 1971 and for the Respondent in C.A. No.
the two sons of the deceased, was produced to further support the claim that Muthiah retained his companyarcenary interest in the family of his birth despite his adoption into another family.
On 21 February, 1954, prior to proceeding to Malaya by air, the deceased took out a personal accident insurance policy with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. hereinafter cal led the Insurance Company .
He rejected the companytention that M. Ct.
