{"id":230325,"date":"1996-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996"},"modified":"2017-07-14T10:34:19","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T05:04:19","slug":"nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: S Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     S.B. Majmudar,J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal by certificate of fitness to appeal granted
\nby the\tHigh  Court  of\t Judicature.  Andhra  Pradesh  under
\nSection\t 65  of\t the  Estate  Duty  Act,  1953\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  ‘the\tAct’)  is  moved  by  the  appellant
\naccountable person  who has  felt aggrieved  by the  answers
\ngiven by  the High  Court against  him on  five out  of\t six
\nquestions referred  by the  income-Tax\tAppellate  Tribunal,
\nHyderabad for  opinion of the High Court under Section 64(1)
\nof the Act. The following six questions were so referred:\n<\/p>\n
     “1. Whether on the facts and in the
\n     circumstances of  the case, the sum
\n     of\t Rs.1.56.971   relating\t to  the
\n     Estate of\tlate Mazharunnisa  Begum
\n     is includible  in the estate of the
\n     deceased as  passing under Sec.5 of
\n     the Estate Duty Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Whether\t on the facts and in the
\n     circumstances of  the case, the sum
\n     of\t Rs.8.23.697,  representing  the
\n     amount spent on the construction of
\n     quarters\t of    dependants    and
\n     Khanazadas, is  includible\t in  the
\n     estate of\tthe deceased under Sec.9
\n     of the Estate Duty Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Whether on the facts and in the
\n     circumstances of the case the sums
\n     of Rs.12,61,649 and Rs.8,85,850
\n     representing respectively sale
\n     proceeds of the property known as
\n     ‘persi polis’ belonging to Prince
\n     Kuararam Jan and shares of
\n     Hindustan Motors Ltd; belonging to
\n     the Dependants and Khanazadas Trust
\n     were held by the deceased in a
\n     fiduciary capacity and whether they
\n     are not includible in the estate of
\n     the deceased under Sec.22 of the
\n     Estate Duty Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t If  the  answer  to  the  above
\n     question  is   in\t the   negative,
\n     whether on\t the facts  and\t in  the
\n     circumstances  of\t the  case,  the
\n     claim for the allowance of the sums
\n     of Rs.12,61,649  and Rs.8,85,850 as
\n     debts due\twas  hit  by  limitation
\n     imposed by Section 49 of the Estate
\n     Duty Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Whether\t on the facts and in the
\n     circumstances  of\t the  case,  for
\n     purposes\tof   determining   under
\n     Sec.36 of\tthe Estate  Duty Act the
\n     Principal\tvalue\tof  the\t  estate
\n     passing  on   the\tdeath\tof   the
\n     deceased, the amount of estate duty
\n     payable is\t liable to be taken into
\n     account and  the principal value of
\n     the  estate   should   be\t reduced
\n     accordingly or  whether the  amount
\n     could be deducted as a ‘debt’ under
\n     Sec.44 of the Estate Duty Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. Whether\t on the facts and in the
\n     circumstances of  the case, the sum
\n     of Rs.5,01,460  being the\tvalue of
\n     properties\t in  the  occupation  of
\n     Sahabzadas\t  and\tSahebzadis   was
\n     includible\t in  the  hands\t of  the
\n     deceased as property passing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So far as Question No.3 is concerned it was answered in
\nfavour of  the appellant. Consequently in the present appeal
\nwe are\tconcerned  with\t Questions  Nos.1.2.4.5.  and  6  as
\naforesaid. At  the time\t of final  hearing  of\tthis  appeal
\nlearned\t counsel   for\tthe  appellant\tfairly\tstated\tthat
\nQuestion No.5 is covered against the appellant by a decision
\nof this\t Court in  the case  of P.  Leelavathamme  (Smt)  v.
\nController of  Estate Duty. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad<\/a> (1991)
\n2 SCC  299. Therefore,\tit will\t have to be answered against
\nthe appellant  and in favour of the respondent. We shall now
\ndeal with the remaining questions which were pressed for our
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
     Question No.1
\n     It has  to be  noted  that\t the  appellant\t accountable
\nperson was  called upon\t by the authorities under the Act to
\nfurnish appropriate  return  disclosing\t net  value  of\t the
\nestate of  the erstwhile  Nizam of  Hyderabad Mir  Osman All
\nKhan,  who   died  on  24th  February  1967.  The  Assistant
\nController computed  the value\tof  the\t estate\t at  Rs.3.69
\nCrores by  making several additions. Question No.1 refers to
\nthe addition  of Rs.1.56.971\/-\tpertaining to  the estate of
\none Mazharunnisa  Begum who  died on  18th  June  1964.\t The
\nAssistant Controller  of Estate\t Duty was  of the  view that
\nsaid Begum  was\t the  wife  of\tlate  Nizam.  He  drew\tthis
\ninference from the fact that late Nizam impleaded himself as
\nher legal  representative after\t her death  in Original Suit
\nNo.14 of  1958 on the file of the High Court relating to the
\nadministration of  Kurshud Jahi\t Paiga. He  also recorded in
\nhis order  that the representative of the accountable person
\nhad agreed  for inclusion  of this  amount. In appeal by the
\naccountable person the submission of the appellant that said
\nBegum was not the wife of late Nizam, was rejected. The said
\ndecision which\tresulted into reference of Question No.1  to
\nthe High  Court, came  to be affirmed by the High Court. The
\nHigh Court  came to  be affirmed by the High Court. The High
\nCourt noted  that it  was not in dispute that late Nizam was
\nclosely associated  with the said Begum and they were living
\nlike husband  and wife.\t That after his death the Nizam took
\nseveral legal  proceedings  holding  out  that\the  was\t the
\nhusband of  said Begum. Nizam himself in several proceedings
\nmentioned her  as his wife. On this evidence, therefore, the
\nHigh Court  rightly came to the conclusion that Mazharunnisa
\nBegum was the wife of late Nizam and consequently the amount
\nrelating to  her estate\t passed on  to Nizam after her death
\nand, therefore, was rightly includible in the estate of late
\nNizam. The  aforesaid finding  of the  High  Court  is\twell
\nsustained  on\tevidence  on   record  and   calls  for\t  no
\ninterference. Question\tNo.1 is, therefore, answered against
\nthe appellant and in favour of the respondent. That takes us
\nto the consideration of Question No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     Question No.2
\n     This question  pertains to\t the inclusion\tof a  sum of
\nRs.8,23,697\/-. It  was the  amount spent on the construction
\nof quarters  for dependents  and Khanazadas of late Nizam in
\nthe open  land\tsurrounding  the  King\tKothi  Palace.\tThis
\nproperty was  gifted on\t 21st March 1957 by an instrument in
\nwriting registered  in favour  of  Nizam’s  grandson  Prince
\nMukarram Jah.  Simultaneously with  the gift  the late Nizam
\ntook on\t lease the  entire  King  Kothi\t Palace\t subject  to
\npayment of  rent and a lease deed was duly registered. While
\nthe property was in his occupation, the Nizam constructed on
\nthe open  land\tin  King  Kothi\t Palace\t some  quarters\t for
\noccupation of  certain descendants  of\tthe  Nizam’s  family
\nknown as dependants and khanazadas. The Assistant Controller
\nof Estate Duty on evidence found that a sum of Rs.8,23,697\/-
\nspent by  late\tNizam  over  the  construction\tof  quarters
\namounted  to  a\t gift  by  the\tdeceased  within  two  years
\nimmediately preceding  his death and, therefore, this amount
\nwas includible\tin the estate of late Nizam by virtue of the
\nfiction contained  in Section 9 of the Act. This finding was
\nupheld by  the Tribunal\t and it\t resulted into the aforesaid
\nquestion which\twas referred  for opinion of the High Court.
\nThe High  Court referred  to  the  evidence  on\t record\t and
\nconcluded that\teven though  the  Khanazadas  had  right  of
\noccupation and\tthe buildings  were given  to them  for that
\npurpose no  liability was  attached to them towards the cost
\nof construction.  And that  liability was  discharged by the
\nlate Nizam  by meeting\tthe cost  and,\ttherefore,  to\tthat
\nextent this  would be  taken as\t an  extinguishment  at\t the
\nexpense of  deceased Nizam  of a  debt or  other right\tand,
\ntherefore, it  amounted to  disposition or  property by\t the
\nlate Nizam  within two\tyears of  his death and consequently
\nunder the  fiction of  Section 9  of the Act the property is
\ndeemed to  have passed\ton his\tdeath. The  High Court\talso
\nnoted the stand taken by the concerned accountable person in
\nwealth tax  proceedings wherein\t it was\t submitted that\t the
\nquarters  after\t  construction\twere   handed  over  to\t the
\nKhanazadas and\tthe Nizam  had divested himself of the right
\nover them  and as such they were in the nature of gifts made
\nby him\tto the\tKhanazadas. Once the said stand was taken by
\nthe accountable\t person in  wealth tax proceedings obviously
\nthe cost  of these  constructions had  to be  taken as gifts
\nmade by\t the  Nizam  to\t the  Khanazadas  and  as  the\tsaid
\ndisposition of\tproperty was  within two years of his death,
\nin the\tpresent estate duty proceedings there was  no escape
\nfrom the  conclusion that these gifted amounts by fiction of
\nSection 9  of the  Act were deemed to be property passing on
\nhis death.   Question  No.2 in our view was rightly answered
\nagainst the  appellant by  the High  Court.  The said answer
\ncalls for  no interference in this appeal.  That takes us to
\nthe consideration  of  Question\t No.4  which  has  a  direct
\nlinkage with  the answer given by the High Court to Question
\nNo.3 in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Question No.4
\n     While  answering\tQuestion  No.3\t in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant the High Court has noted that the sale proceeds of
\nthe property known as ‘persi polls’ at Bombay which belonged
\nto Principle  Mukarram Jah  and shares\tof Hindustan  Motors
\nLimited belonging  to dependents and Khanazadas were held by
\nthe deceased  in fiduciary  capacity  and,  therefore  these
\namounts held  in trust by the late Nizam were not includible
\nin his\testate under  Section 22  of the  Act.\t  Once\tthat
\nfinding was  reached by\t the High  Court in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant. it  is difficult to appreciate how Question No. 4
\ncould have  been answered  against the\tappellant,  Question
\nNo.4 centers  round the\t applicability of  Section 46 of the
\nAct.   The said\t Section  seeks\t to  impose  limitation\t for
\nexcluding from\tallowances and\tdeductions  available  under
\nSection 44  of the  Act the amounts of debts incurred by the
\ndeceased as  mentioned in clause (a) of Section 44 under the
\ncircumstances mentioned\t in  Section  46.  Now\tbefore\tsuch
\nexclusion can  be effected  it\tshould\tbe  shown  that\t the
\nconcerned amount  was a\t debt incurred\tby the deceased. The
\namounts of Rs.12,61,649\/- and Rs.8,85,850\/- were held by the
\ndeceased Nizam\tas trust  money on  behalf of  the concerned
\nbeneficiaries. These  trust amounts lying deposited with the
\nlate Nizam  could not  form part  and parcel  of his estate.
\nConsequently there would remain no occasion to include these
\namounts in his estate. Only on this ground, therefore, these
\namounts were  required\tto  be\texcluded.  There  was  jural
\nrelationship  between  Nizam  on  the  one  hand  and  these
\nbeneficiaries on the other, who were the equitable owners of
\nthese amounts only as trustees and beneficiaries. No debtor-
\ncreditor relationship  existed\tbetween\t them.\tConsequently
\nSection 46  was out  of picture. In our view the High Court,
\ntherefore, was\tnot justified  in treating  these amounts as
\ndebts due  from the Nizam to the concerned beneficiaries and
\nin invoking  Section 46(1)  in that connection. It could not
\nbe said\t that the claim for allowances of the aforesaid sums
\nwas hit\t by the limitation imposed by Section 46 of the Act.
\nQuestion No.4. therefore, will have to be answered in favour
\nof the\tappellant and  against the respondent. That takes us
\nto the consideration of the last question.\n<\/p>\n
     Question No.6
\n     It refers to an amount of Rs.5,01,460\/- being the value
\nof the\tproperties  in\tthe  occupation\t of  Sahebzadas\t and
\nSahebzadees. The  said amount  was included by the Assistant
\nController as  property passing on the death of the deceased
\nNizam. The High Court has answered the said question against
\nthe appellant  relying on  decision of\tthe  High  Court  in
\nCommissioner of\t Income Tax  v. Barkat\tAli Khan<\/a>  1974\t(12)
\nT.L.R. 90.  The said decision was confirmed by this Court in
\nthe case  of Commissioner  of Income-Tax v. Nawab Mir Barkat
\nAli Khan<\/a>  (1991) 188  I.T.R. 231. In our view as there is no
\nclear evidence\ton record  to show that the aforesaid amount
\nrepresented the\t value of  properties which were occupied by
\nway  of\t  full\townership   by\tthe   said  Sahebzadas\t and
\nSahebzadees, the  said amount  was rightly  included in\t the
\nestate of the deceased. On the scanty material on record, it
\nis not\tpossible for us to take any view contrary to the one
\ntaken by the High Court as well as by the authorities below.
\nQuestion No.6.\ttherefore, will\t also have  to\tbe  answered
\nagainst the appellant and in favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result this  appeal stands\t partly allowed only
\nwith reference\tto the\tanswer to  Question No.4. However it
\nwill stand dismissed so far as the answers given by the High
\nCourt against  the appellant  on the remaining questions are
\nconcerned. Orders  accordingly. There will be no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 Author: S Majmudar Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR Vs. RESPONDENT: CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/10\/1996 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\",\"name\":\"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996"},"wordCount":2056,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996","name":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T05:04:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nawab-mir-barkat-ali-khan-bahadur-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 8 October, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}