Estate duty aggregation turns on factual finding of joint ownership; wife's share excluded from the deceased's estate.

A Tribunal's finding on the nature of property and the respective shares of a deceased and his wife, when based on proper appreciation of evidence, will not be disturbed in reference proceedings. After earlier partition and allotment of shares, the remaining property was treated as jointly belonging to the deceased and his wife, so only the deceased's one-half share was includible in the estate for estate duty purposes. The Tribunal's exclusion of the wife's share from aggregation in the estate was sustained, and the reference failed against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that only one-half of the capital standing in the books and the value of the rastha formed part of the deceased's estate, and that the deceased and his wife held the property as tenants-in-common.

Analysis: The Tribunal's determination as to the nature of the property and the shares of the deceased and his wife was based on appreciation of evidence and was treated as a pure finding of fact. The court also accepted the Tribunal's reliance on the relevant legal position that, after the earlier partition and the allotment of shares, the remaining property belonged jointly to the deceased and his wife rather than wholly to the deceased's Hindu joint family estate.

Conclusion: The finding that only one-half of the property was includible in the estate was upheld, and the answer was returned against the Revenue and in favour of the accountable person.

Final Conclusion: The reference failed, and the Tribunal's view excluding the wife's share from aggregation in the estate duty computation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A well-supported finding on the nature of property and the respective shares of the parties, when based on proper appreciation of evidence, will not be disturbed in reference proceedings, and the surviving share alone can be aggregated in the deceased's estate.

---