JUDGMENT
1. This estate duty reference pertains to the estate of the late Rani Urmila Devi Bishnu of Nepal. Rani Urmila Devi was the daughter-in-law of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi who died on February 3, 1952. Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, at the time of her death, had two sons, General Shankar and General Madan who were alive. Her son, General Bishnu, had predeceased, Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. Maharani Bala Kumari Devi also left behind a daughter, Maharani Raj Laxmi Devi. Rani Urmila Devi was the wife of General Bishnu who had pre-deceased Maharani Bala Kumari Devi.
2. General Madan died on June 20, 1953, leaving behind his widow, Rani Jagdamba Devi. He also left behind a mistress, Manik Devi, who had the status of an avaruddha stri, and her two minor sons.
3. Rani Urmila Devi died on or about November 29, 1957. It is the contention of the Department that Rani Urmila Devi was the owner of one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi at the time of her death and, therefore, the estate of Rani Urmila Devi should include the one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi.
4. It is the contention of the Department that Maharani Bala Kumari Devi left a will which was not signed. Under this will of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, however, no share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi is given to Rani Urmila Devi. The will, therefore, does not help the case of the Department.
5. It was next contended on behalf of the Department that, on intestacy on the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, Rani Urmila Devi would inherit one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. In this connection, it is necessary to note that Maharani Bala Kumari Devi and Rani Urmila Devi belonged to the princely family of Nepal. If the law governing the parties was the Hindu law at the time of the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi (February 3, 1952), Rani Urmila Devi would not get any share in the estate of Bala Kumari Devi. The Department, however, contended before the Tribunal that the law of Nepal was Mulaki Ain. The Department, however, failed to establish before the Tribunal or at any point of time in the course of the proceedings what the provisions of this Mulaki Ain were. The Department also failed to establish whether this Mulaki Ain was applicable to the parties in question. The Department also failed to establish that the parties were governed by any other customary law or that, under such customary law, Rani Urmila Devi would be entitled to any share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi.
6. It was then contended by the Department that there was a family arrangement between the sons of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi including Rani Urmila Devi, her son, Pitambar, as also the widow of General Madan after the death of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi and during the lifetime of Rani Urmila Devi as a result of which Rani Urmila Devi got one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. The entire evidence in this connection was examined by the Tribunal and it is also before us. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that any family arrangement was merely tentative and that it could be repudiated at any time. Under the terms of the family arrangement, the terms would come into operation only after they were signed by all the parties and a decree of the court was passed thereon. The terms were not signed by all the parties. Nor was any court order obtained in that connection. In fact, the letter dated January 2, 4, 1957, addressed by Messrs. Fowler and Co., who were the solicitors representing the widow of General Madan, addressed to Messrs. Crawford Bayley and Co., clearly sets out that the disputes between the parties relating to the property of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi were tentatively settled. The letter also sets out that the settlement is tentative only for the reason that it is open to any party to back out of the settlement at any time till the terms are signed by all the parties and a decree of the court is passed thereon. In fact, the parties did have disputes relating to the terms of this tentative settlement. Ultimately, General Shankar, the son of deceased Maharani Bala Kumari Devi, was required to file a suit in the Bombay High Court, being suit No. 48 of 1957 for a declaration, inter alia, that the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be directed to be distributed in terms of the family arrangement under the directions of the court; in the alternative, it was prayed that the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be administered by and under the directions of the court and the shares of the plaintiff and other heirs of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi be ascertained and declared and for various reliefs. This suit was pending when Rani Urmila Devi died. A final decree of the court in this suit was obtained much after the death of Urmila Devi. In the final decree which was passed, there were substantial departures from the originally agreed tentative family arrangement. Under this decree, no part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi came into the hands of the executor of Rani Urmila Devi.
7. Moreover, Manik Devi, the avaruddha stri of General Madan and her two minor children, had not agreed to the proposed family arrangement at all and were disputing such a family settlement. None of the parties had signed the family settlement. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no binding family settlement at the time of death of Rani Urmila Devi. The Tribunal has also pointed out that, apart from the fact that Manik Devi and her sons had not agreed to the provisional family settlement, her sons were minors at the time when the provisional family arrangement was proposed. The family arrangement could not, therefore, be a conclusive and binding one until the sanction of the court was obtained for this family arrangement on behalf of the minors. The parties neither signed such family arrangement nor obtained sanction of the court to such family arrangement at any time prior to the death of Rani Urmila Devi. The argument of the Department, therefore, that Rani Urmila Devi became the owner of one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi by virtue of such family arrangement is without any substance.
8. It was then submitted by Mr.Jetley on behalf of the Department that Rani Urmila Devi was in possession of a part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi under this so-called family arrangement. Hence, she must be held to be the owner of the one-sixth share in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi. We do not find any material on record to show as to which part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi was in the possession of Rani Urmila Devi. What is more important, there is no material to show that she was in such possession as the owner of this part of the estate nor is there any material on record to show that the portion of the estate of which Urmila Devi was in possession constituted one-sixth share of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumar Devi. In these circumstances, in our view, on the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that Rani Urmila Devi was not entitled to one-sixth part in the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi at the time of the death of Rani Urmila.
9. It is also pertinent to note that, under the consent decree, which was finally arrived at in the suit after the death of Rani Urmila Devi, there have been substantial changes in the arrangement which is arrived at, particularly in relation to property going to the share of Manik Devi and her two minor children. Under this decree, no part of the estate of Maharani Bala Kumari Devi comes to the share of Rani Urmila Devi and/or her executors. In these circumstances, the following two questions which have been referred to us for decision under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are answered as follows :
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deceased Rani Urmila Devi had or acquired any share or interest in the property left by Maharani Bala Kumari Devi who died on February 3, 1952 ?
(ii) If so, Whether the alleged one-sixth share of the deceased in the estate of the late Maharani Bala Kumari Devi could be included in the principal value of the estate of the late Rani Urmila Devi at the time of her death ?”
10. Question No. (i) is answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person.
In view of the answer to question No. (i) above, Question No. (ii) does not arise.
11. The applicant to pay to the respondent the costs of the reference.