Court rules in favor of petitioner, exempting estate duty on inherited properties. No costs awarded.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, discharging the rule and vacating the interim order. The petitioner was not found liable to pay estate duty on the properties inherited from the deceased, as it was determined that the property vested in him before the Estate Duty Act came into force. The court did not award costs and left the issue of the properties not coming into the petitioner's hands for future determination before the appropriate authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay estate duty with reference to the properties inherited from the deceasedRs.
2. Interpretation of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Estate Duty Act of 1953.
3. Determining the meaning of "property passing on death" under the Act.
4. Application of relevant legal principles to establish liability for estate duty.
5. Discharge of the rule and vacating of the interim order.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay estate duty on properties inherited from the deceased. The petitioner argues that no estate duty is chargeable as the property vested in him upon the death of the testator in 1930, before the Estate Duty Act came into force. The petitioner contends that nothing passed upon the death of the life estate holder. However, the department argues that the property must be deemed to have passed upon the death of the life estate holder, making the petitioner liable for estate duty.

2. The interpretation of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Estate Duty Act of 1953 is crucial in determining the liability for estate duty. The petitioner's counsel relies on these sections to argue that no duty is payable, emphasizing that the property passed upon the death of the testator and not upon the death of the life estate holder. Conversely, the department's counsel contends that the property must be deemed to have passed upon the death of the life estate holder, invoking relevant provisions to establish the petitioner's liability.

3. The central issue revolves around interpreting the phrase "property passing on death" under the Estate Duty Act. The petitioner's counsel argues that no property passed upon the death of the life estate holder, relying on legal precedents to support this position. However, the department's counsel asserts that the property must be deemed to have passed upon the death of the life estate holder, citing statutory provisions and legal principles to establish the petitioner's liability for estate duty.

4. The application of legal principles to determine liability for estate duty is crucial in this case. The petitioner's counsel relies on case law and statutory provisions to argue that no duty is payable due to the nature of the property transfer. Conversely, the department's counsel invokes relevant sections of the Act and legal interpretations to establish the petitioner's obligation to pay estate duty based on the passing of property upon the death of the life estate holder.

5. Ultimately, the court discharges the rule and vacates the interim order, indicating that the petitioner may have further recourse through appeals if necessary. The court refrains from awarding costs, and the matter regarding the properties not coming into the petitioner's hands is left for future determination before the appropriate authority.

---