{"id":88020,"date":"1996-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996"},"modified":"2018-04-26T10:35:44","modified_gmt":"2018-04-26T05:05:44","slug":"sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V K.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkataswami K. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSAROJINI AMMAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nVenkataswami, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  appeal by\t a certificate\tgranted by  the High<br \/>\nCourt of  Madras under\tsection 65  of the  Estate Duty Act,<br \/>\n1953 (hereinafter  referred to\tas  &#8220;the  Act&#8221;),  the  vexed<br \/>\nquestion of applicability or otherwise of section, 10 of the<br \/>\nAct arises for decision of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     One Murugesa  Mudaliar, the  deceased, passed  away  on<br \/>\n15.10.1964. He was carrying on a business under the name and<br \/>\nstyle of  `Newton  &amp;  Company&#8217;\ta  proprietory\tconcern.  On<br \/>\n20.7.1962. the\tdeceased made  two cash gifts of Rs.40,000\/-<br \/>\neach  to  his  two  daughters,\tnamely\tSmt.  Rajeswari\t and<br \/>\nGnanambigai by\tdebiting his  capital account  and crediting<br \/>\ntheir accounts\tin his\tpersonal business  book. On 20.7.62,<br \/>\nboth the  donee wrote  letters to the deceased accepting the<br \/>\ngifts and thanking their father. Again on 27.7.62 each donee<br \/>\nby separate  letters  thanking\tonce  again  tor  the  gifts<br \/>\nrequested the  deceased to  retain the\tsame in the business<br \/>\nand admit  them as  partners. Accordingly, a partnership was<br \/>\nformed with  effect from  1.8.1962 in  which the  donees and<br \/>\nalso the  donor were  the partners. As noticed, the deceased<br \/>\npassed away  on 15.10.1964.  A question\t arose, inter  alia,<br \/>\nwhether on  the facts  and in the circumstances of the case,<br \/>\nthe gifts  of Rs.80,000\/- in all made by the deceased to his<br \/>\ntwo daughters  by debiting his capital account and crediting<br \/>\nthe accounts  of the  donees in\t his personal  business book<br \/>\ncould not  be included\tin the principal value of the estate<br \/>\nof the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Assistant  Controller of Estate Duty overruling the<br \/>\nobjection of  the accountable  persons concluded  that since<br \/>\nthe gifted  amounts were not taken possession of and enjoyed<br \/>\nby the\tdonees to  the entire  exclusion of  the donor,\t the<br \/>\ngifted amounts\twere liable  to be included in the principal<br \/>\nvalues of the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the<br \/>\nAct. On\t appeal.  the  Appellate  Controller  confirmed\t the<br \/>\nassessment. The\t accountable persons  appealed to the Income<br \/>\nTax  Appellate\tTribunal  (`Tribunal&#8221;  for  short)  and\t the<br \/>\nTribunal found\tthat the  gifts in  question  did  not\tfall<br \/>\nwithin the  ambit of  section 10 of the Act and consequently<br \/>\nthey were  not liable  to estate duty. The Tribunal found as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;These sequence  of events\t clearly<br \/>\n     go to establish:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     1) The two sums transferred by book<br \/>\n     entries were  still  available  for<br \/>\n     purpose of\t the business carried on<br \/>\n     by the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     2)\t Under\t Section  122\tof   the<br \/>\n     Transfer of  Property Act, the gift<br \/>\n     must be  accepted by  the donee and<br \/>\n     an offer  without acceptance of the<br \/>\n     donee cannot  complete the\t gift  .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     While  accepting\tthe  gift,   the<br \/>\n     donees    have    stipulated    for<br \/>\n     retention of  the gifted amounts in<br \/>\n     the business  of the  deceased  and<br \/>\n     admit   them   as\t partners.   it,<br \/>\n     therefore,\t  follows    that    the<br \/>\n     transfer  of  gifts  were\tcomplete<br \/>\n     with the condition or understanding<br \/>\n     that the  gifted  amounts\tfor  the<br \/>\n     capital account  of the  donees and<br \/>\n     continue  to   be\t available   for<br \/>\n     purposes of the business carried on<br \/>\n     by the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     3)\t On   making  the   gifts,   the<br \/>\n     donees?assumed such  possession and<br \/>\n     enjoyment of  the subject matter of<br \/>\n     the gift  as it  was capable  of at<br \/>\n     that  time\t  and  that   was   also<br \/>\n     retained to the exclusion of to the<br \/>\n     donor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     4) If  the donor  had some\t sort of<br \/>\n     control over the gifted amounts, it<br \/>\n     was not  because of any reservation<br \/>\n     made by him while making the gifts,<br \/>\n     but  the\tgift  itself   was  made<br \/>\n     subject   to   the\t  condition   or<br \/>\n     understanding   that   the\t  gifted<br \/>\n     amounts would  be available for the<br \/>\n     continued\tuse   of  the\tbusiness<br \/>\n     carried on by the deceased&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The Revenue  aggrieved by\tthe decision of the Tribunal<br \/>\nmoved the  High Court  by way  of reference. Before the High<br \/>\nCourt, on  behalf of  the accountable persons, a decision of<br \/>\nthe Court  in Controller  of  Estate  Duty,  Kerala  vs.R.V.<br \/>\nViswanathan &amp;  Others. (1977  (1) SCC  90) was\trelied upon.<br \/>\nHowever, the  High Court  distinguished\t that  decision\t and<br \/>\nruled that  on the  facts of the case, Section 10 of the Act<br \/>\nis attracted and consequently answered the question referred<br \/>\nto it in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Later at  the instance  of the accountable persons, the<br \/>\nHigh Court  granted a  certificate of  fitness for appeal to<br \/>\nthis Court  in view  of the  later decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/678242\/\">Controller  of\tEstate\tDuty,  Punjab  &amp;  Haryana,  Jammu  &amp;<br \/>\nKashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh vs. Kamlavati<\/a> (1979<br \/>\n(4) SCC 265).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before  us\t also  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in<br \/>\nViswanathan&#8217;s case  (supra)  and  Kamlavati&#8217;s  case  (supra)<br \/>\ncontended that\tthe facts  of this case as well as the facts<br \/>\nin Vistanathan&#8217;s  case are  identical and the High Court was<br \/>\nnot correct in stating that the facts were not identical and<br \/>\ntherefore, the\tappellant is  entitled to  succeed  in\tthis<br \/>\nAppeal. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Revenue,<br \/>\nhowever, submitted  that in  almost all the cases, the donor<br \/>\nwas  already   a  partner   in\tpartnership   firm  and\t the<br \/>\ndonee\/donees was\/were  taken as\t partner\/partners subsequent<br \/>\nto the gift and the principle or the ratio laid down in such<br \/>\ncases cannot  be pressed  into service\tto the facts of this<br \/>\ncase where  the donor was sole proprietor of the concern and<br \/>\nsubsequent to  the gift.  the donnes  were taken as partners<br \/>\nand the\t partnership came  into existence.  We do  not think<br \/>\nthat the  learned counsel for the Revenue is right in making<br \/>\nthis submission.  In Viswanathan&#8217;s  case, the  donor was the<br \/>\nsole  proprietor   when\t he   gifted  the   total   sum\t  of<br \/>\nRs.2,70,000\/= to his four major and two minor sons.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After going  through various  decisions of\t this Court,<br \/>\nwhich have taken into account a number of English decisions,<br \/>\nwe find\t that the  rigour with\twhich  Section\t102  of\t the<br \/>\nEnglish Act  corresponding to  Section 10  of  our  Act\t was<br \/>\napplied,  has  been  mellowed  down,  if  we  may  use\tthat<br \/>\nexpression, and\t certain amount\t of leniency  has definitely<br \/>\nbeen shown  in favour of the accountable persons. It is true<br \/>\nthat when  the High Court rendered this decision, there were<br \/>\nconflicting views  of High  Courts and\tto a certain extent.<br \/>\nmisunderstanding  of   the  decisions\tof  this  Court\t was<br \/>\nprevailing.  That   was\t the   reason  for   this  Court  in<br \/>\nKamlavati&#8217;s case to observe as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;To  avoid\t  the  conflict\t in  the<br \/>\n     application of  the  ratio\t of  the<br \/>\n     various  Supreme\tCourt  cases  as<br \/>\n     seems to  have been done by some of<br \/>\n     the High  Courts, we  would like to<br \/>\n     clarify and  elucidate some  of the<br \/>\n     aspects and  facets of the matter a<br \/>\n     bit further.  When\t a  property  is<br \/>\n     gifted by\ta donor\t the  possession<br \/>\n     and enjoyment  of which  is allowed<br \/>\n     to a  partnership firm in which the<br \/>\n     donor is  a partner,  then the mere<br \/>\n     fact  of\tthe  donor  sharing  the<br \/>\n     enjoyment or  the\tbenefit\t in  the<br \/>\n     property is  not sufficient for the<br \/>\n     application of  section 10\t of  the<br \/>\n     Act until and unless such enjoyment<br \/>\n     or benefit clearly referable to the<br \/>\n     gift, i.e. to the parting with such<br \/>\n     enjoyment or  benefit by  the donee<br \/>\n     or permitting  the donor  to  share<br \/>\n     them out  of the  bundle of  rights<br \/>\n     gifted  in\t the  property.\t If  the<br \/>\n     possession, enjoyment of benefit of<br \/>\n     the  donor\t  in  the   property  is<br \/>\n     consistent\t with\tthe  other  than<br \/>\n     those of  the factum  of gift, then<br \/>\n     it cannot\tbe said\t that the  donee<br \/>\n     had not retained the possession and<br \/>\n     enjoyment of  the property\t to  the<br \/>\n     entire exclusion  of the  donor  in<br \/>\n     any benefit  to him  by contract of<br \/>\n     otherwise. It  makes no  difference<br \/>\n     whether the  donee is  a partner in<br \/>\n     the firm from before or is taken as<br \/>\n     such at  the  partnership\tfirm  by<br \/>\n     allowing it  to  make  use\t of  the<br \/>\n     gifted property for the purposes of<br \/>\n     the partnership.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     After observing  as above,\t this Court in the said case<br \/>\nfurther observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;But we  want to  emphasis that the<br \/>\n     principles of law laid down by this<br \/>\n     Court in several decisions which we<br \/>\n     have reviewed in this judgment with<br \/>\n     some  further   clarification   and<br \/>\n     elucidation should be carefully and<br \/>\n     broadly applied  to  the  facts  of<br \/>\n     each case without doing too much of<br \/>\n     dichotomy and  hair SD splitting of<br \/>\n     facts so  as not to easily apply or<br \/>\n     not to  apply the\tprovision of law<br \/>\n     contained\tin  Section  10\t of  the<br \/>\n     Act.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     We have  already set  out the  facts as  found  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal and  from those, it is clear that when the gift was<br \/>\nmade and  accepted, it\twas unconditional.  A week later the<br \/>\ndonees requested  that\ta  partnership\tbe  formed  and\t the<br \/>\namounts gifted\tbe retained and utilised as share capital of<br \/>\nthe donees  in the  partnership firm  to be  formed. In\t the<br \/>\nlight of  the letters  written by  the\tdonees,\t as  noticed<br \/>\nabove, we  are of  the view that there is nothing to suggest<br \/>\nthat parting  with the enjoyment or benefit by the donee, or<br \/>\npermitting the\tdonor to  share them  out of  the bundle  of<br \/>\nrights gifted  in the  property is referable to the gift. We<br \/>\nagree with  the contention  of the  learned counsel  for the<br \/>\nappellant that the facts are more or less identical with the<br \/>\nfacts in  Viswanathan&#8217;s case (supra) and the ratio laid down<br \/>\ntherein which  has been\t consistently applied  by this Court<br \/>\nsubsequently will apply to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Accordingly,  we\tallow  the  Appeal  and\t answer\t the<br \/>\nquestion referred  to the  High Court  in the affirmative in<br \/>\nfavour of  the accountable  persons and against the revenue.<br \/>\nHowever. there will be no order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996 Author: V K. Bench: Venkataswami K. (J) PETITIONER: SAROJINI AMMAL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/1996 BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/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-88020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-26T05:05:44+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T05:05:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"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\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T05:05:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-26T05:05:44+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T05:05:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996"},"wordCount":1597,"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\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996","name":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, ... on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T05:05:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarojini-ammal-vs-the-controller-of-estate-duty-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarojini Ammal vs The Controller Of Estate Duty, &#8230; on 18 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88020","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=88020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}