{"id":233120,"date":"1994-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994"},"modified":"2017-06-06T11:30:03","modified_gmt":"2017-06-06T06:00:03","slug":"asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","title":{"rendered":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.C. Sen, K.S. Paripoornan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  71 of 1975\n\nPETITIONER:\nASSTT. COLLECTOR OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV. DEVAKI AMMAL, MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. BHARUCHA & S.C. SEN & K.S. PARIPOORNAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1994 SUPPL. (5) SCR 573<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
BHARUCHA, J. In PL S. RM. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Asstt. Controller of
\nEstate Duty, Coimbatore, 76 ITR 402, a Division Bench of the Madras High
\nCourt, upon a writ petition, held that Section 34(I)(c) of the Estate Duty
\nAct, 1953, was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, It was held
\nthat there was no discrimination brought about by Section 34(l)(c) between
\nthe members of a Mitakshara Joint Hindu family and the members of a
\nDayabhaga family.\n<\/p>\n
Even so, upon a writ petition, another Division Bench of the Madras High
\nCourt in, V. Devaki Ammal v. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras,<\/a> 9:1
\nITR 24, held Section 34 (1) (c) to be discriminatory and violative of
\nArticle 14 of the Constitution. The latter Division Bench noted the
\njudgment of the earlier Division Bench. Indeed, it quoted therefrom. It
\nwent on, however, to consider the validity of Section 34 (1) (c) for the
\nfollowing reasons :\n<\/p>\n
“If section 34 (1) (c) is construed as a provision for aggregation of the
\nbenefits accrued to each of the lineal descendants on the death of the
\ndeceased, then on the principle laid down in that case the validity of the
\nsection has to be upheld, In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
\nwanted us to construe section 34 (1) (c) in the same manner and quash the
\norder of the respondent on the ground that the clubbing of the son’s share
\nwith that of the deceased in this case is not warranted under section 34
\n(1) (c). But the revenue very strenuously contends that the object of
\nsection 34 (1) (c) is to club the coparcenary interest of lineal descendant
\nalso with the coparcenary interest of the deceased so as to form one whole
\nestate and that the validity of the section has to be considered in that
\nlight. As a matter of fact, the respondent in this case has construed
\nsection 34 (1) (c) in the manner suggested by the revenue and has clubbed
\nthe half share of the son with the half share of the deceased father so as
\nto form one estate and had applied the rate applicable to such combined
\nestate in his assessment orders and it is that order which is being
\nchallenged before us. We, therefore, proceed to consider the question of
\nthe validity of section 34(1 )(c) on the basis of the wider interpretation
\nwhich the revenue has adopted.”\n<\/p>\n
We are at a loss to understand how, once one Division Bench of a High Court
\nhas held a particular provision of law to be Constitutional and not
\nviolative of Article 14, it is open to another Division Bench to hold that
\nthe same provision of law is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14,
\nJudicial discipline demands that one Division Bench of a High Court should,
\nordinarily, follow the judgment of another Division Bench of that High
\nCourt. In extraordinary cases, where the latter Division Bench finds it
\ndifficult, for stated reasons, to follow the earlier Division Bench
\njudgment, the proper course is to order that the papers be placed before
\nthe learned Chief Justice of the High Court for constituting a larger
\nBench. Certainly, where one Division Bench has held a statutory provision
\nto be constitutional it is not open to another Division Bench to hold
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
It is more strange that the latter Division Bench here should have
\nreconsidered the constitutionality of Section 34(I)(c) because, as what is
\nquoted above shows, the successful party before the earlier Division Bench,
\nthe Revenue, canvassed a wider interpretation of that provision.\n<\/p>\n
The later judgment of the Madras High Court is under challenge in the first
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
It must be immediately stated that, upon writ petitions, the provisions of
\nSection 34 (1) (c) have been held to be constitutional and not violative of
\nArticle 14 by me Kerala High Court in T.R. Jayasankar v. Assistant
\nController of Estate Duty, 83 ITR 445; The Andhra Pradesh High Court in N.
\nKrishna Prasadv. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty, Guntur,56 ITR 332, Smt.
\nKomanduri Seshamma v. Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, 88 ITR 82, and
\nN.V. Somaraju v. Government of India and Ors. 97 ITR 97; The Punjab High
\nCourt in Hari Ram v. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty-cum-Income-Tax
\nCircle, Gurgaonand Ors., 101 ITR 539; The Allahabad High Court in Badri
\nVishal Tandon v. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty. Allahabad and Ors. 103
\nITR 468; and the Paroa High Court in Rameshwar Loll Agarwal v. Union of
\nIndia and Ors., 133 ITR 545. The validity of Section 34 (1) (c) has also
\nbeen considered in reference applications and upheld by the Allahabad High
\nCourt in Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi V. Controller of Estate Duty,
\nLucknow, 121 ITR 1002; The Madras High Court in Smt Gunvantibai v.
\nController of Estate Dvty, M.P., 130 ITR 122; The Gujarat High Court in
\nRamniklal J. Daftary v. Controller of Estate Duly, Gujarat, 136 ITR 422 and
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court in C. Vanajakshi Venkata Rao and anr, v.
\nController of Estate Duty, 143 ITR 1014; In many-of these judgments the
\nHigh Courts concerned have noted the judgment under appeal and declined to
\nfollow it.\n<\/p>\n
For the purposes of understanding the arguments, it may be noted that
\nSection 3 of the Estate Duty Act is the charging section; it states that in
\nthe case of every person dying after the commencement of the Act there
\nwould be levied and paid upon the principal value of all property specified
\nin the First Schedule to the Act which passed on his death a duty called
\nestate duty; it was payable at the rates fixed in accordance with Section\n<\/p>\n
35. Section 6 states that the property which the deceased was at the time
\nof his death competent to dispose of would be deemed to pass on his death.
\nSection 7(1) states that property in which the deceased or any other person
\nhad an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased would be deemed to
\npass on the deceased’s death to the extent to which a benefit accrued or
\narose by the cesser of such interest, including, in particular, a
\ncoparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family
\ngoverned by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law. Section
\n39(1) states that the value of the benefit accruing or arising from the
\ncesser of a coparcenary interest in any joint family property governed by
\nthe Mitakshara school of Hindu law which ceases on the death of a member
\nthereof shall be the principal value of the share in the joint family
\nproperty which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a
\npartition immediately before his death. There are analogous provisions in
\nrelation to the Marumakkattayam and Aliyasantana families in Section 39(2).
\nFor the purpose of estimating the principal value of the joint family
\nproperty of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam or
\nAliyasantana law in order to arrive at the share which would have been
\nallotted to the deceased had a partition taken place immediately before his
\ndeath, the provisions of the Act are, by reason of Section 39(3), nude
\napplicable as they would have applied if the whole of the joint family
\nproperty had belonged to the deceased. Section 34(1) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“34 (1) For the purpose of determining the rate of the estate duty to be
\npaid on any property passing on the death of the deceased,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) all property so passing other than property exempted from estate duty
\nunder clauses (c), (d), (e), (i), (j), (1), (m), (mn), (n), (o) and (p) of
\nsub-section (I) of section 33;\n<\/p>\n
(b) agricultural land so passing, if any, situate in any State not
\nspecified in the First Schedule; and<\/p>\n
(c)  in the case of property so passing which consists of a coparcenary
\ninterest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the
\nMitakshara, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law, also the interests in the
\njoint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased member,
\nshall be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be
\nlevied thereon at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal
\nvalue thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (2) of Section 34, so far as is relevant for bur purpose, reads
\nthus;\n<\/p>\n
“(2) Where any such estate as is referred to in sub-section (I) includes
\nany property exempt from estate duty, the estate duty leviable on the
\nproperty not so exempt shall be on amount bearing to the total amount of
\nduty which would have been payable on the whole estate had no part of it
\nbeen so exempt, the same proportion as the value of the property not so
\nexempt bears to the value of the whole estate.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-section, “property exempt from
\nestate duty” means –\n<\/p>\n
xxx                          xxx                      xxx<\/p>\n
(iii) the interests of all coparceners other man the deceased in the joint
\nfamily property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara,
\nMarumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the Revenue it was submitted that Section 34 (1) (c) was not
\nviolative of Article 14 and reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
\nMadras High Court in the aforementioned earlier judgment in PL S. RM.
\nSivaswamy Chettiar and me judgments of the various High Courts adverted to
\nabove. It was also submitted, having regard to the fact that we were
\nconcerned with a provision in a taxing statute which had been upheld by so
\nmany High Courts over a long period of time, that uniform understanding of
\nthe law should be maintained. Learned counsel for the accountable person
\npointed out mat clauses (a) and (b) of Section 34(1) related to property
\nthat had actually passed whereas clause (c) related to property which did
\nnot pass but, by reason of the deeming provisions of Section 7, was deemed
\nto pass. By reason of Section 34, therefore, it was submitted, unequals
\nwere treated equally. Estates falling under clauses (a) and (b) were not
\nequal to the estates falling under clause (c) but the latter estates were
\nsimilarly treated in that aggregation in the manner specified under Section
\n34 was required to be made in regard to all of them. We find no substance
\nin this contention. Section 34 sets out at one place in the statute cases
\nin which aggregation is to be made. That aggregation is to be made in
\nrespect of the properties which fall under clauses (a) and (b), which pass
\non death, and also in respect of property under clause (c), which is deemed
\nto pass on death, does not lead to the conclusion that unequals are treated
\nequally.\n<\/p>\n
It was next submitted that when a Dayabhaga father died his son got a share
\nin his estate only on death whereas in a Mitaksbara Joint Hindu family a
\nson got a right to the property thereof at birth. Neither the father nor
\nthe son had any defined share in a joint Hindu family property governed by
\nMitakshara law. Yet, those governed by Mitakshara Jaw were sought to be
\nequated with those covered by Dayabhaga law on death.\n<\/p>\n
We think that we should immediately quote from the judgment of the Madras
\nHigh Court in the earlier case, of PL. S.RM. Ramanathan Chettiar.\n<\/p>\n
“In the case of a member of a Dayabhaga family dying, no question of
\naggregation can arise at all for the member of such a family dying
\npossessed by reason of his personal law a defined share in the assets of
\nthe family, unlike a deceased member belonging to a joint Hindu family
\ngoverned by the Mitakshara law. It is precisely for that reason that in the
\ncase of a member belonging to a joint Hindu family governed by the
\nMitakshara law dying, the principle of aggregation has been embodied in
\nsection 34 (I) (c). But for the principle of aggregation, the rate
\napplicable to such a case will be the rate corresponding to the value of
\nthe benefit that can be regarded as having accrued to each of the lineal
\ndescendants of the deceased. Whereas, in the case of a Dayabhaga family, in
\nview of the fact that the share of the deceased member is a crystallised
\none, the rate applicable in that case would be a rate corresponding to the
\nvalue of the share of the deceased member. It may be seen, therefore, that,
\nbut for the principle of aggregation envisaged by section 34 (I) (c), there
\nwould be discrimination. In fact, section 34 (1) (c) avoids such a
\ndiscrimination. To illustrate, suppose there is a Hindu joint family
\ngoverned by the Mitakshara law consisting of two brothers and one of them
\ndies leaving two sons. Had it not been for section 34 (1) (c), each of the
\nsons would be entitled to insist that the rate applicable to the value of
\nthe benefit accrued to him would be mat corresponding to such value. But,
\nin view of section 34 (1) (c), the value of the benefit accruing to each of
\nthe two sons would be aggregated and the rate applicable to the aggregated
\nvalue as ascertained under section 39 would be applied to the value of the
\nbenefit accruing to one of the sons of the deceased. By this process
\nprecisely the same result is achieved as in the case of a member of a
\nDayabhaga Hindu family dying, assuming that the family consisted of members
\nas we have assumed in the case of the Mitakshara Hindu joint family.\n<\/p>\n
It would follow, therefore, that there is no discrimination whatever
\nbrought about by Section 34(l)(c) between members of a Mitakshara joint
\nHindu family and of a Dayabhaga family in the matter of application of
\nrates of taxation.\n<\/p>\n
The matter can also be looked at rather differently. In the judgment of
\nthis Court in V. Venugopala Ravi Verma Rajah v. Union of India,<\/a> 74 ITR 49,
\nit was said,<\/p>\n
“Again tax laws are aimed at dealing with complex problems of infinite
\nvariety necessitating adjustment of several disparate elements. The courts
\naccordingly admit, subject to adherence to the fundamental principles of
\nthe doctrine of equality, a larger play to legislative discretion in the
\nmatter of classification. The power to classify may be exercised so as to
\nadjust the system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways; the
\nlegislature may select persons, properties, transactions and objects, and
\napply different methods and even rates for tax, if the legislature does so
\nreasonably. Protection of the equality clause does not predicate a
\nmathematically precise or logically complete or symmetrical classification;
\nit is not a condition of the guarantee of equal protection that all
\ntransactions, properties, objects or persons of the same genus must be
\naffected by it or none at all. If the classification is rational, the
\nlegislature is free to choose objects of taxation, impose different rates,
\nexempt classes of property from taxation, subject different classes of
\nproperty to tax in different ways and adopt different modes of assessment;
\nA taxing statute may contravene Article 14 of the Constitution if it seeks
\nto impose on the same class of property, persons, transactions or
\noccupations similarly situate, incidence of taxation which leads to obvious
\ninequality. A taxing statute is not, therefore, exposed to attack on the
\nground of discrimination merely because different rates of taxation are
\nprescribed for different categories of persons, transactions, occupations
\nor objects.\n<\/p>\n
It is for the legislature to determine the objects on which tax shall be
\nlevied, and the rates thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law the sons
\nhave, from birth, an interest along with their father in his property. This
\nis true also of Marumakkattayam and Aliyasantana families. The Mitakshara,
\nMarumakkattayam and Aliyasantana cases form a class apart and the
\nLegislature is entitled to provide, as it has done in Section 7, that in
\nsuch cases the property in which the deceased or any other person had any
\ninterest leasing on his death shall be deemed to pass on the death to the
\nextent to which a benefit accrued or arose by the cessar of such interest
\nSection 39 provides that that benefit shall be valued, in the event that
\nthe deceased was governed by Mitakshara law, on the basis of the principal
\nvalue of the deceased’s share in the joint family property had there been a
\npartition immediately before his death. These provisions are not
\nchallenged. Section 34(1 )(c) only provides for the rate of estate duty to
\nbe levied upon such benefit. For determining that rate the interest of all
\nthe lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint Hindu family property
\nis to be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty is to be
\nlevied at the rate applicable to the principal value thereof. Sub-section
\n(2) of Section 34 is put somewhat clumsily. It uses the expression
\n“property exempt from duty” and its Explanation defines the expression to
\ninclude the interests of all co-parceners, other than the deceased, in the
\njoint family property. Where, therefore, the estate referred to in clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 includes the interests of co-parceners
\nother than the deceased, which is the property exempt from estate duty, the
\nestate duty leviable on the property not exempt, i.e., on the interest of
\nthe deceased, shall be calculated by application of this formula; what is
\nthe proportion of the value of me property not exempt to the value of
\nestate; that proportion of the amount payable tin the estate is payable on
\nthe interest of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
We see, therefore, no merit in the contention that Section 34(1)(C) is
\nviolative of Article 14 or that it is unconstitutional on that account.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1975) is allowed. The judgment and order
\nunder appeal is set aside. The respondent shall pay to the appellant the
\ncosts of the appeal fixed at Rs. 10,000.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 72 and 73 of 1975 and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15176\/85 are
\ndirected against orders that follow the judgment that we have just set
\naside; they are allowed and the orders ander appeal set aside. Civil Appeal
\nNo. 3641 of 1983 is by an accountable person. No point other than that
\ncovered by this judgment has been urged. It is dismissed. Writ Petition
\n(Civil) No. 1007\/89 raises the same point and is dismissed. In Tax
\nReference Case No. 9 of 1978 the question posed is answered in the
\naffirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In all these matters each party
\nshall bear and pay its own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.C. Sen, K.S. Paripoornan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 71 of 1975 PETITIONER: ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS RESPONDENT: V. DEVAKI AMMAL, MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/1994 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA & S.C. SEN […]<\/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-233120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAsstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - 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\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-06T06:00:03+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T06:00:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3056,\"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\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\",\"name\":\"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T06:00:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - 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\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-06T06:00:03+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994","datePublished":"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T06:00:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994"},"wordCount":3056,"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\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994","name":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty ... vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T06:00:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-collector-of-estate-duty-vs-v-devaki-ammal-madras-on-17-november-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty … vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994"}]},{"@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\/233120","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=233120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}