{"id":269189,"date":"1997-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997"},"modified":"2015-02-17T19:37:42","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T14:07:42","slug":"h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","title":{"rendered":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: D Wadhwa.<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agarwal, D.P. Wadhwa.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nH.H. VIJAYABA RAJAMATH AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/07\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGARWAL, D.P. WADHWA.\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
\nD.P. Wadhwa. J.\n<\/p>\n
     This is  assessee’s appeal\t against the  judgment dated
\nFebruary 27,  1980  of\tthe  Karnataka\tHigh  Court  in\t two
\nreference cases\t arising under\tsection 64(1)<\/a>  of the Estate
\nDuty Act,  1953 (for short the Act’)  In the first reference
\nthe Income-tax\tAppellate Tribunal, bangalore Bench referred
\nthe following  five question  to  the  High  court  for\t its
\nopinion an  in the  second reference  one  question  was  so
\nrefarred.  These are as under:\n<\/p>\n
      ” T.R.C. No 122\/75.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1) Whether,  on the  facts and  in
\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the
\n     value of  gold was rightly included
\n     in\t the   principal  value\t of  the
\n     estate of the deceased?
\n     (2) If  the  answer  to  the  above
\n     question  is  in  the  affirmative,
\n     whether the   correct  value to  be
\n     included is  on the  basis\t of  the
\n     market value  of gold prevailing in
\n     India as  on the  date of\tdeath or
\n     the international\tprice of gold as
\n     on\t that date?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) Whether,  on the  facts and  in
\n     the Circumstance of the cases,  the
\n     Tribunal  was   right  in\t law  in
\n     holding that  the market  value  of
\n     the  annuity  deposits  was  to  be
\n     included in  the principal value of
\n     the estate of the deceased?
\n     (4) Whether,  on the  facts and  in
\n     the circumstances of the case,  the
\n     Tribunal\t was\t justified    in
\n     confirming the disallowance claimed
\n     by the  accountable  persons  under
\n     section 48<\/a> of the Act in respect of
\n     the  death\t  duty\tpaid   in   U.K.
\n     interest paid  on to Lloyds bank in
\n     U.K.,  and loss on devaluation ?
\n     (5) Whether,  on the  facts and  in
\n     amount  of\t  Rs.  51,  000\/-  which
\n     became payable  to the advocate and
\n     the  chartered  accountant\t of  the
\n     deceased subsequent  to the date of
\n     death is  allowable as  a deduction
\n     under section  36(1)<\/a> of  the Estate
\n     Duty Act”?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     T.R.C. 81 of 1977.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ” Whether\ton the\tfacts and in the
\n     circumstances of  the  case.    The
\n     principal value  of the  estate  of
\n     the deceased  had to  be determined
\n     under section  36<\/a> of the Act having
\n     regard to\tthe death  duty paid  in
\n     United kingdom  and the estate duty
\n     payable under the Act”?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr.  G.C.\tSharma,\t learned  senior  advocate  for\t the
\nappellants,   has however  confined his\t submissions to\t the
\nquestion of  law as stated in question No. (4) in T.R.C. No.
\n122\/75 and  did not  press  other  questions  all  of  which
\nhowever have been answered against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     For convenience sake we again set out the question No.4
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
     “(4) Whether,  on the  facts and in
\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the
\n     Tribunal\t was\t justified    in
\n     confirming the disallowance claimed
\n     by the  accountable  persons  under
\n     section 48<\/a> of the Act in respect of
\n     the death\tduty  paid  in\tU.K..  ,
\n     interest  paid  on\t death\tduty  in
\n     U.K.,   interest payment  to Lloyds
\n     bank  in\tU.K.  ,\t   and\tloss  on
\n     devaluation ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under this question, the appellants who are accountable
\npersons claimed the following deductions under Section 48<\/a> of
\nthe Act:\n<\/p>\n
     Pound Sterling
\n     “Death duty paid in U.K.
\n     Interest paid on delayed payment of that duty.
\n     Interest and service charges
\n     paid to lloyds Bank
\n     Solicitor’s fee paid in
\n     London.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Case\trelates to the assessment of the estate duty
\nof the estate of late  H.H. Rajkuverba Dowgar Maharani Saheb
\nof Gondal  who died  on\t October  14,  1968  leaving  behind
\nextensive properties  both in  England and  in India.\t The
\nappellants are her two daughters and are accountable persons
\nunder the Act.\tIt is not disputed  that for death duty paid
\nin the\tUnited Kingdom\trelief had  already been afforded to
\nthe appellants\tby  virtue  of\tan  agreement  entered\tinto
\nbetween India  and United kingdom for avoidance or relief of
\ndouble taxation\t with\trespect to estate duty under section
\n30<\/a> of  the Act.\t The contention\t however    was\t that  under
\nsection 48<\/a>  of the  Act this  amount of\t estate duty paid in
\nU.K.   be treated  as cost  of\trealising  or  administering
\nforeign\t  property and\tthus   allowable under section 48<\/a> of
\nthe  Act.     While  Section  30<\/a>  applies  to  the  case  of
\nreciprocating country,\t section   49<\/a> provides for allowance
\nfor duty  paid in  a non  – reciprocating  country.  Section
\n30<\/a>,  48<\/a> and 49<\/a> may be reproduced a as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “30.  The\tcentral\t Government  may
\n     enter into\t an agreement  with  the
\n     Government\t of   any  resiorocating
\n     country for the avoidance or relief
\n     of double\ttaxation with respect to
\n     estate  duty  leviable  under  this
\n     Act. and  under  the  corresponding
\n     law in  force in  the reciprocating
\n     country and  may,\tby  notification
\n     in\t the  official\t  Gazette,  make
\n     such provision  as may be necessary
\n     for inrolementing\tthe agreement.
\n     Explanation  –   The  expression  ”
\n     reciprocating    country”\tfor  the
\n     country  which\tthe\t central
\n     Government may,  by    notification
\n     in the  official  Gazette,\t declare
\n     to be  a reciprocating  country.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     48.  Whether  the\tcontroller    is
\n     satisfied\tthat\t any  additional
\n     expense  in   administering  or  in
\n     realising\t property    has    been
\n     incurred by  reason of the property
\n     being   situate out  of India.   he
\n     may make  an property on account of
\n     such expense  not exceeding  in any
\n     case five per cent on the value  of
\n     the property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     49. Where\tany property  passing on
\n     the  death\t  of  the   deceased  is
\n     situate  in   a   non-reciprocating
\n     country  and   the\t controller   is
\n     satisfied that   by  reason of such
\n     death any\tduty is\t payable in that
\n     country   in    respect   of   that
\n     property,\t be may, subject to such
\n     rules  as may be made  by the Board
\n     in this behalf,  make and allowance
\n     of the  whole or  any part\t  of the
\n     amount   of that  duty  from    the
\n     value of the property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation.- In  this section, the
\n     expression\t    “non  -reciprocating
\n     country” means   any country  other
\n     that India\t which\t  has  not  been
\n     declared  to   be\ta  reciprocating
\n     declared  to   be\ta  reciprocating
\n     country  for  the purposes\t of this
\n     Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At this  stage itself  we may  note Article  VI of\t the
\nAgreement for  avoidance of double taxation under section 30<\/a>
\nof the\tAct   entered into  between  the Government of India
\nand the Government  of united  kingdom\tof Great Britain and
\nNorthern Ireland.  It is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “Article  VI.\t (1)  Where  one
\n     Contracting     Government\t imposes
\n     duty or  any property  which is nor
\n     situated in  its territory\t but  is
\n     situated in  the territory\t of  the
\n     former   Government   shall   allow
\n     aqainst so\t much of  its duty  ( as
\n     other  wise     computed)\t  as  is
\n     attributable  to  that  property  a
\n     credit (  not exceeding  the amount
\n     of the duty so attributable ) equal
\n     to so  much of  the duty imposed in
\n     the   territory\tof   the   other
\n     contracting   Government\t as   is
\n     attributable to such property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)    Where    each    contracting
\n     Government\t  imposes  duty\t on  any
\n     property which is situated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  in   the  territory\tof  both
\n     Governments, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) outside both territories.
\n     each  Government\t   shall   allow
\n     against so\t much of  its duty  ( as
\n     otherwise\t computed)    as      is
\n     attributable  to  that  property  a
\n     credit   which   bears   the   same
\n     proportion to  the amount\t of  the
\n     other   contracting   Government ‘s
\n     duty  attributable\t  to  the   same
\n     property,\t whichever is  the less,
\n     as the  former amount  bears to the
\n     sum of both amounts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  For\tthe  purposes\tof  this
\n     Article,  the amount of the duty of
\n     a\t  contracting\t      Government
\n     attributable    to\t any\tproperty
\n     shall be  ascertained after  taking
\n     into account any credit,  allowance
\n     or relief,\t  or  any  remission  or
\n     reduction\t  of  duty,    otherwise
\n     than in respect of duty  payable in
\n     the   territory\tof   the   other
\n     Contracting Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the basis of the provisions as contained in Sections
\n30<\/a>, 48<\/a>\tand 49<\/a>\tand Article  VI of  the\t agreement aforesaid
\nquestion No.  4 was answered in the affirmative in favour of
\nthe revenue  and  against  the\taccountable  persons.\t Mr.
\nSharma, learned\t counsel for  the appellants,\t accountable
\npersons,   submitted that section 30<\/a> had nothing to do\twith
\nthe computation\t of income and that  scope of section 30<\/a> and
\n48<\/a> was different.  He said section  30<\/a> only provided for the
\navoidance or  relief of\t double taxation  with\t respect  to
\nestate\tduty   leviable\t under\tthe  Act.    and  under\t the
\ncorresponding law  in force  in the  reciprocating   country
\nwhile  section\t48<\/a>  provided  for  allowing  any  additional
\nexpense incurred  in administering  or realising property by
\nreason\t of  the  property  being  situated  out  of  India.
\nAccording to  Mr. Sharma,   the\t estate duty  paid in  U. K.
\nwould be  an additional expense\t allowable  under section 48<\/a>
\nof the Act.  We,  however,  do not  think that Mr. Sharma is
\nright  in  his\t  submission.\t As    a  principle,  in  P.
\nleelavatnamma vs.   Controller of Estate Duty (1991) 188 ITR
\n803 it\thas   been held\t by this   court  that estate\tduty
\nfalling\t  upon the  estate  passing  on\t the  death  of\t the
\ndeceased is  not  deductible in computing  the net principal
\nvalue of   the estate  for the purposes\t of the Act. Section
\n49<\/a> of  the Act\tcontradicts the\t stand taken  by Mr. Sharma.
\nThis section applies where any property passing on the death
\nof the\tdeceased is  situate in a non-reciorocating  country
\nand the\t controller of\testate duty may make an allowance of
\nthe whole   or\tany   part of  the amount of the estate duty
\npayable in  the non-reciprocating country from\tthe value of
\nthe property.\tThat  would,  however, be subject to certain
\nrules with which we  are not  concerned. If we read sections
\n48<\/a> and\t49<\/a>  together  it  is  difficult\t to  appreciate\t the
\nargument of  Mr. Sharma\t that where  there is  an  agreement
\nunder Section  30<\/a>* of the Act the estate duty payable in the
\nreciprocating country  is nevertheless\tto  be\tdeducted  or
\ngiven an  allowance from  the value  of the property left by
\nthe deceased.\tIt  is\t not the  case of the appellant that
\nunder section\t30<\/a>  of the  Act\t  in terms  in terms  of the
\nagreement  between  the two Governments, i.e. the Government
\nof India  and the  Government of United kingdom,  relief has
\nnot been  granted to  the   appellants under Article  VI  of
\nthe agreement.\t allowance  of the estate duty paid in U.K..
\nwas given  in the  estate duty\tpayable in this country.  An
\namount of  pound sterling  75,320,12 as the  death duty paid
\nin U.K.\t cannot be  treated as\tan  expense  for  which\t the
\nappellants are entitled to claim as an additional expense in
\nadministrating or  in realising\t the property  falling under
\nsection\t  48<\/a> of\t the Act.  The appellants are only  entitled
\nto deduction   of  the death duty paid in England out of the
\nestate duty  payable as\t computed by  the authorities  under
\nthe Act\t in this   country.   it  is difficult to accept the
\nargument of  the appellant  that relief\t granted by  way  of
\navoidance of  double taxation  is not  a  relief  under\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act\tand  that  there  is  a\t distinction
\nbetween\t  the relief   under  the agreement  entered into by
\nvirtue of the provision of section  30<\/a> and the\trelief to be
\ngiven\tunder  section\t48<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards\t the interest paid on delayed payment of the
\ndeath duty in England  and interest on\tservice charges paid
\nto the\tLloyds Bank, the Tribunal has held  that no material
\nwas produced ” either before the lower authorities or before
\nus to  show that these amounts would not have  been incurred
\nif the\tproperty was  in   India and  not in  U. K.  In this
\nconnection   it is  necessary to  note that  the property in
\nU.K.. consisted\t of certain   deposits\t and war bonds which
\ncould be  easily realised.   We\t see no\t justification\t for
\nallowing   the claim in respect of these two  items .”\tThis
\nfinding of  the Appellate  Tribunal has not  been questioned
\nby the\tappellants.  so far  as the amount of pound sterling
\n4, 855.55  towards  solicitor ‘s  fee in London is concerned
\nthe Appellant  controller of  Estate Duty  held\t that it was
\nan   additional expense\t in administrating  or in  realising
\nthe property   by  reason of  the property  being    situate
\noutside\t India\tand deduction  was therefore  allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly,   we do  not\t find\tany  merit  in these
\nappeals\t and the  same\tare dismissed.\tNo costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997 Author: D Wadhwa. Bench: S.C. Agarwal, D.P. Wadhwa. PETITIONER: H.H. VIJAYABA RAJAMATH AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGARWAL, D.P. WADHWA. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-269189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nH.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-17T14:07:42+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\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T14:07:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1955,\"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\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\",\"name\":\"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T14:07:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-17T14:07:42+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\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997","datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T14:07:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997"},"wordCount":1955,"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\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997","name":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T14:07:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-h-vijayaba-rajamath-and-anr-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H.H. Vijayaba Rajamath And Anr vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, … on 8 July, 1997"}]},{"@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\/269189","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=269189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}