{"id":41034,"date":"1988-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988"},"modified":"2018-07-07T10:13:29","modified_gmt":"2018-07-07T04:43:29","slug":"dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","title":{"rendered":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1511, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 269<\/div>\n
Author: M Venkatachalliah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDIPTI NARAYAN SRIMANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/05\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1511\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 269\n 1988 SCC  (3) 488\t  JT 1988 (2)\t559\n 1988 SCALE  (1)1140\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1991 SC 378\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\n     Estate Duty  Act, 1953-Section  12(1) Requirements\t of-\nSection\t 12(1)\t does  not   draw-upon\tthe   incidents\t and\nimplications of\t \"settled property\"  for satisfaction of its\nrequirements-Section 12(1)-Property  covered  by  settlement\nneed not  be \"settled property\" as defined in section 2(19)-\nThe incidents  of \"settled  property\" defined  by sec. 2(19)\nneed not be incorporated into the ingredients of sec. 12(1)-\nRequirements of\t Section 12(1) will be satisfied if there is\nsettlement as  defined under  2nd Part of Sec. 2(19) and if,\nthere is  reservation of  an  interest\tby  the\t settlor  in\naddition.\n     Estate  Duty   Act,  1953-Section\t2(19)-Definition  of\nSettled properties and Settlement-What amounts to settlement\nis a matter of construction of the Deed-All settled property\nis subject  matter of  settlement but  all subject matter of\nsettlement need not become settled property-Settled property\nmust be by way of succession.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A person  during his  lifetime  executed  trust  deeds,\ndated 21.9.53  and 4.10.1959  respectively. Under  the\tDeed\ndated 21.9.1953\t that person  as settlor,  transferred\tupon\ntrust  to  himself  as\ttrustees  four\titems  of  immovable\nproperty. The  objects and  purposes of\t the  trust  broadly\nstated were  the conduct  of the daily worship of the deity,\ncarrying out  of  certain  charitable  acts  and  making  of\nprovisions for the maintenance of the settlor and some other\npersons. The trustee was required after defraying taxes etc.\nto accumulate  1\/4th of\t the net  income to be set-apart for\npurposes of  effecting certain\tadditions and alterations to\nthe properties; to make over another 1\/4th of the net income\nto the\tshebait for  the conduct of the daily pooja; another\n1\/4th for  the charities  and the  remaining 1\/4th  for\t the\npersonal benefit  of the  settlor during his lifetime and to\nhis heirs  thereafter. Later on the share of the settlor was\nchanged to  5\/16. Under the deed dated 4.10.1959 the settlor\ntransferred upon trust to himself and his son, the appellant\nin Civil  Appeal No.  946 of  1975, as\ttrustees  six  other\nproperties, almost  for the  same purposes  and kept a fixed\nshare for the benefit of the settlor during his lifetime and\nthereafter to his heirs. In the proceedings of assessment to\nEstate Duty  the  question  arose  whether  the\t trust-deeds\nattracted and fell within-\n270\nsection 12(1)  of the Estate Duty Act. The Deputy Controller\nof Estate  Duty, the  Appellate Controller of Estate Duty in\nthe first  appeal and  the  Income-tax\tAppellate  Tribunal,\nCalcutta, in  the second appeal held that the entire subject\nmatter of  the deeds  must be  held, or\t deemed, to  pass on\ndeath and  the value of the properties should be included in\nthe principal  value of\t the Estate passing on death. At the\ninstance of  the accountable-person, a reference was made to\nthe High  Court for  opinion as\t to whether  the  properties\ncomprised  in  both  the  trust-deeds  were  dutiable  under\nsection\t 12(1)\t of  the  Act.\tThe  High  Court  held\tthat\nproperties  comprised  in  the\tdeed  dated  21.9.1953\twere\nsettled property  within the  meaning of  section 2(19)\t and\nthat  section  12(1)  was  attracted.  In  relation  to\t the\nproperties covered  by the  deed dated\t4.10.1959, the\tHigh\nCourt held  that Section 12(1) was not applicable to them as\nthey were  not settled\tproperties. Feeling  aggrieved, both\nthe accountable\t person and  the Deputy Controller of Estate\nDuty filed these cross appeals. Dismissing the appeal of the\naccountable  person,  allowing\tthat  of  the  Revenue,\t and\nanswering the  question referred  to by\t the High  Court for\nopinion in  the affirmative  and against  the assesee,\tthis\nCourt,\n^\n     HELD: The\tfirst contention  of the accountable persons\nthat the  interest in  the  property  corresponding  to\t the\nbenefit retained  by the settlor was not a subject matter of\nthe  disposition   at  all   is\t essentially   a  matter  of\nconstruction of the deeds. There is, no doubt, a discernible\ndifference between  a case  of settlement  of property\twith\nreservation of\ta benefit to the settlor on the one hand and\nthe case  where what  is settled is only a share or interest\nor part\t of the\t property, excluding  the part\tor the share\ncorresponding to  the benefit that the settlor has chosen to\nretain. There  is, indeed,  no transfer at all in the latter\ncase. The  accountable person  contends that there is really\nno transfer  of\t the  share  corresponding  to\tthe  benefit\nreserved in both the cases. [278F-G]\n     In the  present case,  any\t possibilities\tof  such  an\nargument are  ruled out\t by the explicit terms of the deeds.\nThe subject  matter of the deeds are not 11\/16 share and 1\/2\nshare in  the properties  respectively.\t The  whole  of\t the\nproperties are\tconveyed upon trust. There is, therefore, no\nscope for this submission. [280C-D]\n     St. Aubyn\tv. Attorney  General, [1951]  2 All  England\nReports 496;  Controller of  Estate Duty,  A.P. Hyderabad v.\nSmt. Godavari  Bai, A.I.R.<\/a> 1986 SC 631 at 635 and Controller\nof Estate  Duty, Kerala\t v. M\/s. R.V. Vishwanathan and Ors.,<\/a>\n[1977] 1 SCC 90 at 97 and 99, referred to.\n271\n     The second\t contention of\tthe accountable\t person that\nprovisions  of\tsection\t 12(1)\tare  not  attracted  as\t the\nproperties did\tnot fill  the bill  as \"Settled\t Properties\"\nwithin the  meaning  of\t Section  2(19)\t has  no  substance.\nSection 12(1)  refers to  and deals  with a case of property\npassing under  a  \"settlement\"\tin  which  the\tsettlor\t had\nreserved to  himself an\t interest in  such  property  either\nexpressly or  by implication.  Apparently, on  its language,\nthe  section   does  not   draw\t upon\tthe  incidents\t and\nimplications of\t \"Settled Property\"  for the satisfaction of\nits  requirements.   The  passing   of\tproperty   under   a\n\"settlement\"  which   means  \"any  disposition\tincluding  a\ndedication or endowment whereby property is settled\" coupled\nwith a\treservation of\tan interest  in the  property  would\nsuffice. The further incident that the properties covered by\nthe settlement\tmust in addition partake of the character of\n\"Settled property\" and accordingly, should stand \"limited in\ntrust for  any person,\tnatural\t or  juridical,\t by  way  of\nsuccession\"  etc.  are\tnot  to\t be  held  as  part  of\t the\nrequirements of\t section 12(1).\t Those incidents of \"Settled\nProperty\" need not be imported to the ingredients of section\n12(1) which would be satisfied if there is a \"Settlement\" as\ndefined under the second part of section 2(19) and if, there\nis reservation\tof an  interest by  the settlor in addition.\n[280D; 281C-E]\n     In the  instant case,  the two deeds clearly answer the\ndescription of\t\"Settlement\" as\t defined under Section 2(19)\nviz. that  there is  a \"disposition  including a dedication,\nwhereby property  is settled\".\tIndeed under both the deads,\nthe reservations  of the  benefit of  the  income  from\t the\ntrust-properties were  made in\tfavour of the settlor. These\nreservations  by  themselves,  in  our\topinion,  bring\t the\nproperties within the net of section 12(1). In addition, the\nsettlor in  this case  constituted himself  during his life-\ntime and thereafter constituted his heirs as the shebaits of\nthe two deities. Indeed where while endowing properties to a\ndeity, the settlor stipulates that he shall during his left-\ntime and  thereafter his heirs be the shebaits of the deity,\nthe settlor  can possibly  be said  to provide\tnot only for\ncertain duties to be vested in connection with the endowment\nbut also  secures a  beneficial interest  in  the  property.\n[281F-H; 282A]\n     Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick,<\/a> [1951] SCR 1125\nat 1132\t and Kalipada Chakraborti & Anr. v. Palani Bala Devi\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
     The reservation  “interest”, so  as to  attract Section
\n12(1), must  be in  the\t property  as  such  and  that\tmere
\ncollateral benefits  reserved by  the settlor emanating from
\nsome other property or some other source, inde-\n<\/p>\n
272<\/span><\/p>\n
pendent of  the property  so settled,  will not\t attract the
\nsection. The distinction between a case of a benefit arising
\n“collaterally” and  a case  of the benefit being reserved by
\n“implication”\twould\t require   to\t be   kept   clearly
\ndistinguished. [282H; 283A, C]
\n     Controller of  Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai & Ors.,<\/a> 89
\nITR 251 (SC) at 257, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
     The  terms\t of  the  two  documents  satisfy  even\t the
\nextended requirement  that for purposes of section 12(1) the
\nsettled property must be by way of succession. [284E]
\n     Attorney  General\tv.  Owen,  [1899]  2  Queen’s  Bench
\nDivision 253  at 266  and Hamid\t Hussain  v.  Controller  of
\nEstate Duty, 83 ITR 309 at 315, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
     There is no substance in the 3rd contention also of the
\naccountable person  that all  the properties  covered by the
\ntwo settlements\t cannot be  held to pass under section 12(1)
\nbut  only   the\t value\t of  the  share\t of  the  properties
\ncorresponding to  the benefit reserved must be held to pass.
\nThere are certain fallacies in some of the assumptions basic
\nto this\t contention. The  quantum of  the interest  reserved
\ndoes not  determine the extent of the property passing under
\nSection 12(1).\tThis is\t not a\tcase where  several distinct
\nproperties or  parcels are settled and a beneficial interest
\nis reserved  out of  one alone\twhen it might be possible to
\npredicate that\tall properties comprised in such settlement,
\nwhich must  be held  to be  a composite\t deed  dealing\twith
\nseveral items  do not  attract section\t12(1) but  only\t the
\nparcel out  of which  an interest is carved out and reserved
\nfor the\t settlor’s  benefit.  Under  Section  12(1)  if\t the
\ndeceased makes\ta settlement  and reserves  for\t himself  an
\ninterest therein  for life  or for  any period\tdeterminable
\nwith reference\tto death,  the\twhole  of  the\tproperty  so
\nsettled would be deemed to pass. The interest reserved might
\nbe very\t small indeed;\tbut however small the interest, when
\nby virtue  of such  a reservation  a settlement falls within
\nthe purview  of section\t 12, the  whole\t property  would  be
\ndeemed to pass. [284F-H; 285A-B]
\n     Attorney General  v. Earl. Grey, [1898] 1 Q.B.D. 318 at
\n325, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
     The expression  ‘interst’ in  section 12(1) is also not
\nused in a restrictive sense. [285D]
\n     Attorney General  v. Heywood,  [1887] 19  QBD  326\t and
\nAttorney
\n273<\/span>
\nGeneral v. Farrel, [1931] 1 K.B. 81, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
&
\n     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 946 of
\n1975 & 1251 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  11.10.1974 of\t the
\nCalcutta High  Court in\t Estate Duty  Reference No.  117  of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Shankar  Ghosh, D.P.  Mukharji and  G.S. Chatterjee
\nfor the\t Appellant in  C.A. No. 946\/75 and for Respondent in
\nC.A. No. 1251 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     C.M. Lodha,  Ms. A.  Subhashini and  K.C. Dua  for\t the
\nRespondent in  C.A. No.946\/75  and for the Appellant in C.A.
\nNo. 1251 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATACHALIAH, J. These appeals, by certificate, under
\nSection 65 of the Estate Duty Act of 1953 (‘Act’ for Short)-
\none by\tthe accountable-person\tand the\t other by the Deputy
\nController of  the Estate Duty-arise out of and are directed
\nagainst the  Judgment, dated 11.10.1974 of the High Court of
\nCalcutta, answering,  in a  reference under Section 64(1) of
\nthe ‘Act’, the question of law referred for its opinion.\n<\/p>\n
     The  matter  pertained  to\t the  determination  of\t the
\nprincipal value\t of the\t Estate passing\t on the death, which
\noccurred on  24.3.1960, of  a certain  Satya Charan Srimani.
\nDipti Narayan  Srimani, appellant  in CA 946\/1975 is the son
\nof the deceased and is the accountable-person.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  said Satya\t Charan Srimani during his life-time
\nhad executed  three trust deeds, dated, 8.12.1947, 21.9.1953
\nand 4.10.1959  respectively. In\t the proceedings, the nature
\nand effect  of the  dispositions made under the deeds of the
\ntrust,\t dated,\t   21.9.1953   and    4.10.1959\t  fell\t for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\tdeed, dated, 21.9.1953, Satya Charan Srimani
\nas settlor,  transferred upon  trust to himself as trustee 4
\nitems  of  immovable  property,\t viz.  130  and\t 133,  upper
\ncircular Road;\tand 32\/5  and 32\/5  Beadon Street, Calcutta.
\nThe objects and purposes of the trust, broadly stated, were:\n<\/p>\n
     (i) the  conduct of  the daily worship and sevas of the
\n     Deity Sree Sridhar\t Jiu;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
274<\/span><\/p>\n
     (ii) the carrying out of certain charitable acts, deeds
\n     and things mentioned in schedule B of the deed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) the\tmaking of  provision for  the maintenance of
\n     himself and the persons mentioned in the said deed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The trustee  was required,\t after defraying  taxes\t and
\nother out-goings,  to accumulate  1\/4th of the net-income to
\nbe set-apart for purposes of effecting certain additions and
\nalterations to the properties; to make over another 1\/4th of
\nthe net-income\tto the\tshebait for the conduct of the daily
\nand periodical pujas, worship and rituals of the said deity;
\nanother 1\/4th  for the\tcharities mentioned  in the deed and
\nthe remaining  1\/4th for the personal benefit of the settlor
\nduring his  life-time and to his heirs thereafter. After the
\ndevelopmental-works were  completed, the  proportions of the
\nshares allotted to various objects were suitably modified in
\nthat 7\/16th share was to be made over to the shebait; 4\/16th
\nshare to be spent for charitable purposes and 5\/16th for the
\nbenefit of the settlor and his heirs.\n<\/p>\n
     3.\t Under\t the  deed  dated,  4.10.1959,\tthe  settlor
\ntransferred upon  trust to himself and his son Dipti Narayan
\nSrimani as  Trustees, six  other  properties,  one  of\tthem
\nsituate in  Varanasi, for  the conduct\tof daily-worship and
\nperiodical festivals,  rituals and  ceremonies of the deity,
\nShri Ishwar Gobinda Jiu; for certain charitable purposes and
\nalso for  the benefit  of himself and his heirs. The settlor
\nprovided for his residence, free of rent, in one room on the
\nground floor  in the  Varanasi property. A 1\/4th of the net-
\nincome of the trust-properties, after defraying expenses and
\ntaxes, was  to be paid to the shebait for the conduct of the
\nworship, rituals  and services\tof  the\t deity\tShri  Ishwar
\nGobinda Jiu;  another 1\/4th  to be  spent on  the charitable
\npurposes mentioned  in the  deed and  the balance of 1\/2 for
\nthe development,  additions and\t alterations of\t two of\t the
\ntrust-properties viz.  No. 41  & 42 Macleod Street Calcutta.
\nAfter completion  of the  developments and  alterations, the
\nsaid 1\/2  share was  stipulated to go for the benefit of the
\nsettlor during\this life-time  and thereafter  to his heirs.
\nUnder  both   the  dispensations,  the\tsettlor\t constituted
\nhimself the shebait.\n<\/p>\n
     4. In the proceedings of assessment to estate duty, the
\nquestion arose\twhether the  trust-deeds attracted-and\tfell
\nwithin-Section 12(1)  of the  ‘Act’. The  accountable-person
\ncontended that\tthe four  trust-properties under  deed dated
\n21.9.1953 could\t not be said to be “Settled-Property” within
\nthe definition\tin Section 2(19) and that at all events what
\nmust be held to pass would only be a 1\/4th share,
\n275<\/span>
\ncorresponding to  the benefit  reserved for  the settlor and
\nhis heirs. Similarly, in respect of the six-trust properties
\ncovered by  the deed, dated 4.10.1959, it was urged that the
\nproperties were\t not “Settled-Properties”  and that  at\t all
\nevents only 1\/2 of the property so passed.\n<\/p>\n
     The Deputy\t Controller of\tEstate Duty;  the  Appellate
\nComptroller of\tEstate Duty  in\t the  first-appeal  and\t the
\nIncome-Tax Appellate  Tribunal,\t Calcutta,  in\tthe  second-
\nappeal, held that the entire subject-matter of the two deeds
\nmust be\t held, or deemed, to pass on death. The value of the
\nproperties constituting\t the subject-matter  of deed  dated,
\n21.9.1953 estimated  at Rs.4,69,287  and those\tconstituting
\nthe  subject-matter   of  the\tdeed,  dated,  5.10.1953  at
\nRs.1,27,400 were  accordingly, included\t in  the  principal-
\nvalue of the estate passing on death.\n<\/p>\n
     5. On  20.2.1971, the  Tribunal at\t the instance of the
\naccountable -person stated a case and referred under Section
\n64 of  the ‘Act’  the following\t question  of  law  for\t the
\nopinion of the High Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whether on  the facts and in the circumstances of
\n\t  the case  and on  a proper  interpretation of\t the
\n\t  trust-deeds dated,  21.9.1953 and  4.10.1959,\t the
\n\t  properties comprised\ttherein are  dutiable  under
\n\t  Section 12(1) of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. A  Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment,
\ndated 11.10.1974  held that  so far  as the  four properties
\ncomprised in  the deed, dated 21.9.1953 were concerned, they
\nwere “Settled-Property”\t within the meaning of Section 2(19)
\nand  that   Section  12(1)-was\tattracted.  The\t High  Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…..So  far\t as  the  deed\tdated  21.9.1953  is
\n\t  concerned, by\t the said deed the property has been
\n\t  made\tdebutter   and\tthere\tis,   therefore,   a
\n\t  dedication in\t favour of  the deity;\tand  as\t the
\n\t  settlement by\t the said deed creates or results in
\n\t  a dedication\tor endowment, the properties settled
\n\t  by the  said deed should, therefore, be considered
\n\t  to be\t settled properties, in view of the specific
\n\t  provision contained  in  sec.\t 2(19)\trelating  to
\n\t  dedication or endowment …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “…The provisions  contained in  the\t deed  dated
\n\t  21.9.1953  which   we\t have\tearlier\t considered,
\n\t  clearly indicate  that the settlor has reserved to
\n\t  himself an  interest in  the properties within the
\n\t  meaning of section 12(1) of the Act. He has
\n276<\/span>
\n\t  expressly reserved for himself for life one fourth
\n\t  share of  the\t income\t of  the  properties  before
\n\t  development  and  seven  sixteenth  share  of\t the
\n\t  income  of   the  properties\t after\tdevelopment.
\n\t  Section 12(1)\t is therefore  clearly attracted  to
\n\t  the properties  mentioned in\tthe said  deed dated
\n\t  21.9.1953 ….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     However, the  High\t Court\ttook  a\t different  view  in
\nrelation to  the  properties  covered  by  the\tdeed,  dated
\n4.10.1959 and  held that they were not hit by Section 12(1).
\nThe High Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “….As in  our opinion  the properties covered by
\n\t  the deed dated 4.10.59 are not sattled properties,
\n\t  section 12(1)\t cannot apply to the said properties
\n\t  ……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Concluding the High Court held:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “….. We  must therefore, hold that section 12(1)
\n\t  of  the  Act\tapplies\t to  the  trust\t deed  dated
\n\t  21.9.1953 and\t the said section has no application
\n\t  to the  trust deed dated 4.10.1959. Accordingly we
\n\t  answer the  question by saying that the properties
\n\t  comprised in\tthe trust  deed dated  21.9.1953 are
\n\t  dutiable under  section 12(1)\t of the\t Estate Duty
\n\t  Act and the properties comprised in the trust deed
\n\t  dated 4.10.1959  are not  dutiable  under  section
\n\t  12(1) of the Estate Duty Act ……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Division Bench, however, left open the question, whether
\nthe properties, constituting the subject-matter of the trust
\ndeed, dated  4.10.1959, would attract any other provision of
\nthe Act, to be decided by the appropriate authority.\n<\/p>\n
     From this opinion expressed by the High Court, both the
\naccountable-person and\tDeputy Controller of the Estate Duty
\nhave come up in appeal-the former aggrieved by the inclusion
\nof the whole of the properties, comprised in the trust dated
\n21.9.1953 in  the principal-value  of the  estate;  and\t the
\nlatter by  the exclusion  of the properties constituting the
\nsubject-matter\tof   the  trust\t dated\t4.10.1959  from\t the
\nprincipal-value of the estate.\n<\/p>\n
     7. We  have heard Dr. S. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate
\nfor the\t accountable-person and Shri C.M. Lodha, learned Sr.
\nAdvocate for the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
277<\/span><\/p>\n
     Having regard  to the career of this litigation and the
\nvarying shades\tof the legal thought attracted by it both in
\nthe statutory  appeals and  before the\tHigh Court,  one  is
\ntempted to  recall the\treflections of\tDiplock L.J.  in Re:
\nKilpatrick’s [1966] 2 WLR 1346 at 1370.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As in  nearly all  appeals about  estate duty,  I
\n\t  reach my  decision without  confidence. Were\tI  a
\n\t  betting man  I should\t lay the  odds on  its being
\n\t  right at  6 to  4 (i.e., 3 to 2) on-or against. If
\n\t  ever a branch of law called for reform in 1966, it
\n\t  is the law relating to estate duty. It ought to be
\n\t  certain: it  ought to\t be sensible-it\t is  neither
\n\t  …..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Re Weir’s Settlement [1968] 2 All E.R. 1241, Cross J
\nhad said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The facts  are simple  enough, but  it  will\t not
\n\t  surprise any-one  acquainted with  this branch  of
\n\t  the law  to learn  that the  argument lasted\tover
\n\t  four\tdays-during  which  counsel  at\t all  events
\n\t  wasted no  words-and that some thirty authorities,
\n\t  many of  them in the House of Lords, were referred
\n\t  to. The law of estate duty has indeed now attained
\n\t  a degree  of refinement which would have gladdened
\n\t  the heart of Lort Sd. Leonards.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The legislative  expediencies in the development of the
\nlaw of\tDeath-Duties in\t England reflect an on-going, and no
\nless  interesting,   interaction  between   the\t resourceful
\ningenuity of the conveyancing lawyer on the one hand and the
\nlegislative vigilance  to plug\tthe susceptibilities  of the
\nlaw that  sustain tax-planning, on the other. The handy-tool
\nof the\tconveyancing lawyer  was the  notion in\t the law  of
\nReal-property that  ownership was  detached from  ‘land’ and
\nwas attached to something called the ‘estate’ in land.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The  submissions  of  the  learned  counsel  in\t the
\nappeals are  patterned substantially  on the  ground covered
\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In support of the accountable-person’s appeal Dr. Ghosh
\nsubmitted:\n<\/p>\n
\t  a) First,  that, on  a proper\t construction of the
\n\t  two deeds,  what must\t be held to constitute their
\n\t  subject-matter  are\tonly  the   shares  in\t the
\n\t  properties corresponding to the interests intended
\n\t  for the  benefit of the deities and the charities;
\n\t  and that the interest in the property correspond-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
278<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  ing to the benefit retained by the settlor was not
\n\t  the subject-matter of the disposition at all;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  b) Secondly,\tthat, even  if\tboth  the  documents
\n\t  might admit  of being\t called “settlements”  in  a
\n\t  wider-sense the  properties dealt  with thereunder
\n\t  were not  “Settled-Property” within the meaning of
\n\t  Section 2(19)\t as there  was no  in-\t   tervening
\n\t  limited-interest before  a final  vestiture of the
\n\t  ownership; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  c) Thirdly, that, at all events, what must be held
\n\t  to attract and fall within the mischief of Section
\n\t  12(1) and be deemed to pass on death would only be
\n\t  the  value   of  such\t  share\t as  corresponds  or
\n\t  referable, to\t the quantum of interest so reserved
\n\t  by  the   settlor-namely  5\/16th   share  in\t the
\n\t  properties covered  by the  first-document and 1\/2
\n\t  share in  the properties  comprised in the second-
\n\t  document and\tnot the\t entire\t value\tof  all\t the
\n\t  properties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Shri C.M.\tLodha learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue
\nsubmitted  that\t this  case  was  frank\t case  of  what,  by
\ndefinition, attracted  the wider  net of  Section 12(1)\t and
\nthat resort  to the implications of “Settled Property” under
\nSection 2(19) was unnecessary once it is clear that there is
\na “settlement”\twithin the  meaning of Section 12(1) coupled
\nwith the  reservation of  an interest however small. Learned
\nCounsel submitted  that the  distinction made  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  between\t the  properties  covered  by  deed,  dated,
\n21.9.1953 on  the one  hand and\t those covered\tunder  deed,
\ndated, 4.10.1959 on the other, is, in the ultimate analysis,
\na distinction without a difference.\n<\/p>\n
     9.The first contention of Dr. Ghosh pertaining to what,
\naccording to him, should be held to be the subject-matter of
\nthe trust-deeds,  is essentially a matter of construction of
\nthe deeds.  There is,  no doubt,  a  discernible  difference
\nbetween a case of settlement of property with reservation of
\na benefit  to the settlor on the one hand and the case where
\nwhat is\t settled is  only a share or interest or part of the
\nproperty, excluding  the part  or the share corresponding to
\nthe benefit that the settlor has chosen to retain. There is,
\nindeed, no  transfer at\t all in\t the latter  case. Dr. Ghosh
\nsays  that   there  is\treally\tno  transfer  of  the  share
\ncorresponding to  the benefit  reserved in  both the  cases.
\nThis is\t the construction learned counsel wants the court to
\nplace on the two deeds.\n<\/p>\n
279<\/span><\/p>\n
     In St.  Aubyn v.  Attorney General\t (See 1951  (2)\t All
\nEngland\t Reports  496),\t Lord  Radcliffe  brought  out\tthis
\ndistinction  between  what  was\t transferred  and  what\t was
\nretained:\n<\/p>\n
\t  …..it is  the possession  and enjoyment  of\t the
\n\t  actual property given that has to be taken account
\n\t  of, and  that if that property is, as it may be, a
\n\t  limited  equitable   interest\t or   an   equitable
\n\t  interest distinct from another such interest which
\n\t  is not given or an interest in property subject to
\n\t  an  interest\t that  is  retained,  it  is  of  no
\n\t  consequence for  this purpose\t that  the  retained
\n\t  interest remains  in the  beneficial enjoyment  of
\n\t  the person who provides the gift ….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The distinction  between the  two types of dispositions
\nis brought  out in  the context of Section 10, in Controller
\nof Estate  Duty, A.P.  Hyderabad v.  Smt. Godavari  Bai, AIR<\/a>
\n1986 SC 631 at 635:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…In other\twords if  the deceased\tdonor limits
\n\t  the interest\the is  parting with and possesses or
\n\t  enjoys some benefit in the property not on account
\n\t  of the  interest parted  with but  because of\t the
\n\t  interest  still  retained  by\t him,  the  interest
\n\t  parted with will not be deemed to be a part of the
\n\t  estate of  the deceased-donor passing on his death
\n\t  for the  purpose of  S. 10 of the Act. It is these
\n\t  aspects which mark the distinction between the two
\n\t  leading cases, namely Chick’s case 1959 3 ITR (ED)
\n\t  89 and  Munro’s case\t1934 AC\t 61 (supra).  As  we
\n\t  shall indicate presently Chick’s case falls within
\n\t  the first category while Munro’s case falls within
\n\t  the other category …..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again, in the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala v. M\/s. R.V.
\nVishwanathan &\tOrs.,<\/a> [1977]  1 SCC  90 at  97 &  99 it\t was
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “14. The  question as\t to whether  gifted property
\n\t  should be  held to  be a part of the estate of the
\n\t  deceased  donor  passing  on\this  death  for\t the
\n\t  purpose of  Section 10  of the  Act is  not always
\n\t  free from  difficulty. It  would depend  upon\t the
\n\t  fact as  to what  precisely was the subject-matter
\n\t  of the  gift\tand  whether  the  gift\t was  of  an
\n\t  absolute nature  or  whether\tit  was\t subject  to
\n\t  certain  rights.   There  is\t a  fine   but\treal
\n\t  distinction between the two types of cases …..”
\n\t  “…..To put\tit in  other words,  if the deceased
\n\t  owner
\n280<\/span>
\n\t  delimits the\tinterest  he  is  parting  with\t and
\n\t  possesses and\t enjoys some benefit in the property
\n\t  not on  account of  the interest  parted with\t but
\n\t  because of the interest still retained by him, the
\n\t  interest parted  with shall  not be  deemed to  be
\n\t  part of  the estate  of the deceased donor passing
\n\t  on his  death for the purpose of Section 10 of the
\n\t  Act. The  principle is that by retaining something
\n\t  which he  has never  given, a donor does not bring
\n\t  himself within  the mischief\tof that section, nor
\n\t  would the  provisions of  the section be attracted
\n\t  because of  some benefit  accruing to the donor on
\n\t  account of what was retained by him …..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. In  the present  case, any possibilities of such an
\nargument are  ruled out\t by the explicit terms of the deeds.
\nThe subject-matter of the deeds are not, respectively, 11\/16
\nshare and  1\/2 share  in the  properties. The  whole of\t the
\nproperties are\tconveyed upon trust. There is, therefore, no
\nscope for  this submission.  The  first\t contention  of\t Dr.
\nGhosh, therefore, fails.\n<\/p>\n
     11.  The\tsecond\tcontention  of\tDr.  Ghosh  is\tthat
\nprovisions  of\tsection\t 12(1)\tare  not  attracted  as\t the
\nproperties do  not fill\t the  bill  as\t“Settled-Properties”
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2(19)  which defines  “Settled-Properties”\t and
\n‘settlement’, respectively provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ”    “Settled\t property”   means  property   which
\n\t  stands limited  to, or  in trust for, any persons,
\n\t  natural  or\tjuridical,  by\tway  of\t succession,
\n\t  whether the settlement took effect before or after
\n\t  the commencement  of this  Act;  and\t“settlement”
\n\t  means any  disposition, including  a dedication or
\n\t  endowment, whereby property is settled;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  statutory-definition\t of  “Settled-Property”\t and
\n“settlement” is\t such that  while it is possible to say that
\nall   “Settled-Property”    is\t the\tsubject-matter\t  of
\n“settlement”, conversely,  however,  all  subject-matter  of
\n‘settlement’,  need   not  necessarily\tand  proprio-vigore,
\nbecome “Settled-Property”.  The latter\tconcept requires for
\nits satisfaction certain specific incidents and consequences
\nof a settlement”.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 12(1) provides:\n<\/p>\n
281<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  12(1). Property  passing under any settlement made
\n\t  by the  deceased by  deed or\tany other instrument
\n\t  not taking effect as a will whereby an interest in
\n\t  such\tproperty   for\tlife  or  any  other  period
\n\t  determinable by  reference to\t death\tis  reserved
\n\t  either expressly  or by implication to the settlor
\n\t  or  whereby  the  settlor  may  have\treserved  to
\n\t  himself the right by the exercise of any power, to
\n\t  restore to  himself or  to  reclaim  the  absolute
\n\t  interest in  such property shall be deemed to pass
\n\t  on the settlor’s death ….”\n<\/p>\n
     Section 12(1)  refers to  and  deals  with\t a  case  of
\nproperty passing  under a  “settlement” in which the settlor
\nhad reserved  to himself an interest in such property either
\nexpressly or  by implication.  Apparently, on  its language,
\nthe  section   does  not   draw-upon   the   incidents\t and
\nimplications of\t “Settled-Property” for\t the satisfaction of
\nits  requirements.   The  passing   of\tproperty   under   a
\n“settlement”  which   means  “any  disposition\tincluding  a
\ndedication or endowment whereby property is settled” coupled
\nwith a\treservation of\tan interest  in the  property  would
\nsuffice. The further incident that the properties covered by
\nthe settlement\tmust in addition partake of the character of
\n“Settled-Property” and accordingly, should stand “limited in
\ntrust for  any person,\tnatural\t or  juridical,\t by  way  of
\nsuccession”  etc.  are\tnot  to\t be  held  as  part  of\t the
\nrequirements of\t Section 12(1). Those incidents of “Settled-
\nProperty” need\tnot be\timported  into\tthe  ingredients  of
\nSection 12(1)  which  would  be\t satisfied  if\tthere  is  a
\n“settlement” as\t defined under\tthe second  part of  Section
\n2(19) and  if, there  is reservation  of an  interest by the
\nsettlor in addition.\n<\/p>\n
     The  two\tdeeds  clearly\tanswer\tthe  description  of
\n‘Settlement’ as-defined under Section 2(19), viz. that there
\nis a  “disposition including  a dedication, whereby property
\nis settled.”  Indeed under  both the deeds, the reservations
\nof the\tbenefit of the income from the trust-properties were
\nmade  in  favour  of  the  settlor.  These  reservations  by
\nthemselves, in\tour opinion, bring the properties within the
\nnet of Section 12(1).\n<\/p>\n
     12. This should dispose of the second contention of Dr.
\nGhosh. In  addition, the  settlor in  this case\t constituted
\nhimself during\this life-time and thereafter constituted his
\nheirs as the shebaits of the two deities. Indeed where while
\nendowing properties  to a deity, the settlor stipulates that
\nhe shall  during his  life-time and  thereafter his heirs be
\nthe shebaits  of the deity, the settlor can possibly be said
\nto provide  not only  for certain  duties to  be  vested  in
\nconnection with the endowment
\n282<\/span>
\nbut also secures a beneficial interest in the property.\n<\/p>\n
     The  following   observations  of\t Mukherjea,  J.\t  in
\nAngurbala Mullick  v. Debabrata\t Mullick,<\/a> [1951] SCR 1125 at
\n1132 as\t to the\t nature of  the office\tof a  shebait may be
\nrecalled:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… The exact legal position of a shebait may not
\n\t  be  capable\tof  precise   definition   but\t its
\n\t  implications are  fairly well\t established. It  is
\n\t  settled  by  the  pronouncement  of  the  Judicial
\n\t  Committee in\tVidya Varuti  v. Balusami  that\t the
\n\t  relation  of\ta  shebait  in\tregard\tto  debutter
\n\t  property  is\tnot  that  of  a  trustee  to  trust
\n\t  property under the English Law. In English Law the
\n\t  legal estate\tin the\ttrust property\tvests in the
\n\t  trustee who holds it for the benefit of cestui gue
\n\t  trust. In a Hindu religious endowment on the other
\n\t  hand\tthe   entire  ownership\t  of  the  dedicated
\n\t  property  is\ttransferred  to\t the  deity  or\t the
\n\t  institution itself  as a  juristic person  and the
\n\t  shebait or  mahant is a mere manager. But though a
\n\t  shebait is  a manager\t and not  a trustee  in\t the
\n\t  technical  sense,  it\t would\tnot  be\t correct  to
\n\t  describe the\tshebaitship as\ta mere\toffice.\t The
\n\t  shebait  has\tnot  only  duties  to  discharge  in
\n\t  connection  with  the\t endowment,  but  he  has  a
\n\t  beneficial interest in the debutter property ….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Again, in\tKalipada Chakraborti  & Anr.  v. Palani Bala
\nDevi & Ors.,<\/a> [1953] SCR 503 at 516 & 517 it was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… Whatever\t might be said about the office of a
\n\t  trustee, which carries no beneficial interest with
\n\t  it,  a   shebaitship,\t as  is\t now  well  settled,
\n\t  combines in  it both\tthe elements  of officer and
\n\t  property …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “… There  could be\tno doubt  that there  is  an
\n\t  element in  the shebaiti right which has the legal
\n\t  characteristics of  property; but  shebaitship  is
\n\t  property of  a peculiar  and anomalous  character,
\n\t  and it is difficult to say that it comes under the
\n\t  category of  immovable property  as it is known in
\n\t  law …”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13. It  is true  that the reservation of “interest”, so
\nas to attract Section 12(1), must be in the property as such
\nand that  mere collateral  benefits reserved  by the settlor
\nemanating from\tsome other  property or\t some other  source,
\nindependent of the property so settled, will not
\n283<\/span>
\nattract the  section. In  Controller of\t Estate Duty  v.  R.
\nKanakasabai &  Ors.,<\/a> 89\t ITR 251  (SC) at 257 this Court, in
\nthe context of Section 10, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…\tThe   provisions  for  annual  payments\t and
\n\t  maintenance made  in the deeds as seen earlier are
\n\t  not charged  on the  properties settled. Hence the
\n\t  deceased cannot  be  said  to\t have  retained\t and
\n\t  interest in  the properties settled. Therefore, it
\n\t  cannot be said that he retained any benefit either
\n\t  in the  properties settled  or in respect of their
\n\t  possession …”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     But in the present case, benefits reserved emanate from
\nthe very  properties constituting  the subject-matter of the
\nsettlements and\t cannot be  said to  be collateral  in their
\nnature. The  distinction between a case of a benefit arising
\n“collaterally” and  a case  of the benefit being reserved by
\n“implication”\twould\t require   to\t be   kept   clearly
\ndistinguished.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Having\t regard to  the special nature of the office
\nof a  shebait and  the rights and interests that to with it,
\nit is  possible to  contend that  when a  settlor endows the
\nproperty to an idol and reserves the right of shebaitship to
\nhimself, he  would be reserving an interest in the property.
\nIt is,\tno doubt,  true that  while dealing  with a  case of
\ncessor of  interest, under  section 7  of  the\tAct,  of  an
\nelected Mahant in Math properties, it was held by this court
\nthat no interest passes on the death of Mahant duly elected,
\nand that  the provisions  of the Act are not attracted (See:
\nController of  Estate Duty,  Bihar v.  Mahant  Umesh  Narain
\nPuri,<\/a> [1982]  2 SCC  303. But  the case\t of  a\tsettlor\t who
\nhimself endows property to an idol and constitutes himself a
\nshebait is  obviously different.  But we  need not,  in this
\ncase, finally  pronounce on  the effect\t of  reservation  of
\nshebaitship by a settlor in the context of Section 12(1).\n<\/p>\n
     15. But  even to  the extent,  the\t argument  that\t for
\npurpose of  Section  12(1)  the\t property  must\t answer\t the
\ndescription of\t“settled property”  goes the  expression “by
\nway of\tsuccession” import  of\tthe  words  were  stated  in
\nAttorney General v. Owen, (See 1899 2 Queen’s Bench Division
\n253 at 266) by Kennedy, J:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… “By  way of  succession” seems  to me to be a
\n\t  phrase to  which one\tought, in  dealing with this
\n\t  Act, not  to assign a narrow or strictly technical
\n\t  meaning,  but\t  to  treat   it  as  equivalent  to
\n\t  “successively upon death”; and substantially un-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
284<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  der the present will the property out of which the
\n\t  annuities are paid is property to which, so far as
\n\t  benefit is  concerned, the annuitants are entitled
\n\t  during life,\tand which,  so\tfar  as\t benefit  is
\n\t  concerned, passes  to the  residuary devisees upon
\n\t  the  deaths\tof  the\t  annuitants.  There   is  a
\n\t  succession, in a popular but correct sense, in the
\n\t  enjoyment  of\t this  portion\tof  the\t testatrix’s
\n\t  residuary estate  which comes\t to  them  upon\t the
\n\t  decease of the annuitants …”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Following this  view, the Allahabad High Court in Hamid
\nHussain v.  Controller of  Estate Duty, held (See 83 ITR 309
\nat 315):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…\tThe   settlor  clearly\t contemplated\tthat
\n\t  successive generations  would enjoy the benefit of
\n\t  the wakf  and thereafter  it\twould  pass  to\t the
\n\t  persons covered by the charitable purposes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       It seems to us that upon these considerations
\n\t  the property\tmust be\t considered to\tbe  “settled
\n\t  property” and\t the wakf,  being  a  dedication  of
\n\t  endowment, must  be considered  to be a settlement
\n\t  within the  meaning of  section 2(19). Inasmuch as
\n\t  the property\tcomprised in the wakf passes under a
\n\t  settlement, it  is property which falls within the
\n\t  scope of section 12 …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The terms  of the  two documents in our opinion satisfy even
\nthis extended requirement of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     16.  What\t remains  to  be  considered  is  the  third
\ncontention of  Dr. Ghosh.  Learned Counsel says that, at all
\nevents, all  the properties  covered by\t the two settlements
\ncannot be  held to  pass under\tSection 12(1)  but only\t the
\nvalue of  the share  of the  properties corresponding to the
\nbenefit reserved  must be  held to  pass.  There  are  again
\ncertain fallacies  in some  of the assumptions basic to this
\ncontention. The\t quantum of  the interest  reserved does not
\ndetermine the  extent of  the property passing under Section
\n12(1). This  is not a case where several distinct properties
\nor parcels are settled and a beneficial interest is reserved
\nout of one alone when it might be possible to predicate that
\nall properties\tcomprised in  such settlement, which must be
\nheld to\t be a  composite deed  dealing with several items do
\nnot attract  Section 12(1)  but only the parcel out of which
\nan interest  is carved\tout and\t reserved for  the settlor’s
\nbenefit.  Under\t Section  12(1)\t if  the  deceased  makes  a
\nsettlement and\treserves for himself an interest therein for
\nlife or for
\n285<\/span>
\nany period  determinable with  reference to death, the whole
\nof the\tproperty so  settled would  be deemed  to pass.\t The
\ninterest reserved  might be  very small\t indeed; but however
\nsmall the  interest, when  by virtue of such a reservation a
\nsettlement falls within the purview of Section 12, the whole
\nproperty would be deemed to pass. This is what was clarified
\nin Attorney General v. Earl Grey, [1898] 1 Q.B.D. 318 at 32.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… But  it is  to be observed that the words are
\n\t  “an  interest\t in  such  property.”  Any  interest
\n\t  however small\t will do,  provided it issues out of
\n\t  such property-that  is, out of the property sought
\n\t  to be\t taxed. I  agree that  if several parcels of
\n\t  land be  given by  one and  the same deed of gift,
\n\t  and an  interest be  reserved to  the donor out of
\n\t  one of  those parcels\t only, estate duty would not
\n\t  be payable  upon the\twhole subject-matter  of the
\n\t  gift, but  only out  of that\tspecific portion  in
\n\t  which the  interest is  expressed to\tbe reserved.
\n\t  But that is not the case here …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The expression\t‘interest’ in Section 12(1) is also not used
\nin a  restrictive sense.  Wills, J.  in Attorney  General v.
\nHeywood, [1887] 19 QBD 326 said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… This  application of  the word  ‘interest’ is
\n\t  not  confined\t  to  a\t  vested  or  a\t necessarily
\n\t  contingent interest.\tThe Act\t was meant to cast a
\n\t  wider net  than such\ta construction\twould  imply
\n\t  …………. The  Act of  Parliament was meant to
\n\t  meet cases  in which\tan interest of some sort was
\n\t  conferred and which were not already provided for,
\n\t  and I\t think the  language  used  is\tsufficiently
\n\t  comprehensive to include the present case …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This colloquial and somewhat liberal connotion of ‘interest’
\nwas adopted  and followed  in Attorney\tGeneral\t v.  Farrel,
\n[1931] 1 K.B. 81 Greer, L.J. said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In that  case the only interest which the settlor
\n\t  retained in  the sum\tof money  settled by him was
\n\t  the expectation, well founded or ill founded, that
\n\t  the trustees\twould exercise\ttheir discretion  in
\n\t  his favour;  but the trustees might quite lawfully
\n\t  have\trefused\t to  give  him\tanything,  and\thave
\n\t  distributed  the   income  among   his  wife\t and
\n\t  children. He\thad  a\tmere  expectation  that\t the
\n\t  discretion which was vested in
\n286<\/span>
\n\t  the trustees\tmight be  exercised in\this  favour,
\n\t  either partly or entirely, and that in my judgment
\n\t  is exactly the position that Major Alfred Stourton
\n\t  was in  this case.  He had no legal right to force
\n\t  the trustees\tto give\t him anything;\tat the\tsame
\n\t  time he  had in  a colloquial sense an interest in
\n\t  the estate,  because it was an estate out of which
\n\t  something  might   be\t allotted   to\thim  in\t the
\n\t  discretion of\t the trustees.\tWhether that  is  an
\n\t  interest within  the meaning\tof the\tAct of\t1881
\n\t  has, I  think, been determined by Attorney-General
\n\t  v. Heywood,  and the\tdecision has stood since the
\n\t  year 1887, a period of forty-three years.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There is,\tthus, no  substance in\tthe third contention
\neither.\n<\/p>\n
     17. In  the result,  for the  foregoing reasons,  Civil
\nAppeal 1251  of 1975  of the Deputy Controller of the Estate
\nDuty is allowed and the question referred for the opinion is
\nanswered in  the affirmative  and against  the assessee.  We
\nhold that  while the  High Court  was right in its view that
\nthe properties\tcovered by  the deed  dated  21.9.1953\twere
\nrequired to be brought to charge under Section 12(1), we are
\nunable to  agree with  the reasoning  of, and the conclusion
\nreached by,  the High  Court in\t regard\t to  the  properties
\ncovered by  the deed  dated 4.10.1959.\tAccordingly while CA
\nNo. 946\t (NT) of  1975 brought\tby the accountable-person is
\ndismissed; CA  1251 of\t1975 by\t the revenue succeeds and is
\nallowed and the judgment of the High Court, to the extent it
\npertains to the properties covered by deed, dated 4.10.1959,
\nis set-aside.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  circumstances, there  will be  no order  as  to
\ncosts in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\n<\/p>\n
287<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1511, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 269 Author: M Venkatachalliah Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J) PETITIONER: DIPTI NARAYAN SRIMANI Vs. RESPONDENT: CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/05\/1988 BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-41034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - 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\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-07T04:43:29+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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-07T04:43:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\"},\"wordCount\":5372,\"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\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\",\"name\":\"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-07T04:43:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - 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\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-07T04:43:29+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988","datePublished":"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-07T04:43:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988"},"wordCount":5372,"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\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988","name":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West ... on 9 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-07T04:43:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dipti-narayan-srimani-vs-controller-of-estate-duty-west-on-9-may-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dipti Narayan Srimani vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West … on 9 May, 1988"}]},{"@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\/41034","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=41034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41034\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}