Revenue entries cannot prove partition or title; estate duty assessment sustained despite a belated writ challenge.

Revenue entries and khasra girdawri were held insufficient to prove title or partition of a Hindu undivided family property, so the property standing in the deceased's name was treated as separate property and estate duty applied to it. The challenge based on lack of individual notice also failed because the petitioner did not participate in the statutory proceedings or file the required return, and could not reopen concluded factual issues through writ jurisdiction after valid assessments and appeals against his brothers. Any dispute about contribution between siblings was a separate inter se matter, not a basis to invalidate the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deceased's property was joint family property or had been partitioned so as to limit estate duty to only a fractional share; (ii) Whether the petitioner could invalidate the estate duty proceedings and assessment on the ground that he was not individually noticed and that the assessments made against his brothers were void.

Issue (i): Whether the deceased's property was joint family property or had been partitioned so as to limit estate duty to only a fractional share.

Analysis: The claim that the property belonged to a Hindu undivided family was unsupported by evidence. No partition deed or reliable material was produced to show an earlier division or to establish what portion, if any, remained with the deceased. Entries in khasra girdawri could at best indicate possession or cultivation and did not establish title or partition. Revenue entries do not confer proprietary rights, and the authorities were justified in treating the property standing in the deceased's name as his separate property.

Conclusion: The contention failed and the estate duty was assessable on the property as held by the deceased.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could invalidate the estate duty proceedings and assessment on the ground that he was not individually noticed and that the assessments made against his brothers were void.

Analysis: The petitioner never participated in the statutory proceedings or filed the return contemplated by the Act. The assessments and appellate orders were passed against the brothers who had been given the opportunity to contest the matter, and the petitioner could not use writ jurisdiction to reopen concluded factual issues already unsuccessfully raised by them. The absence of a notice to the petitioner did not create a cause to challenge valid proceedings against others, and any dispute about contribution between siblings was a separate inter se matter.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not successfully challenge the proceedings on this ground, and the writ was not maintainable for that purpose.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the estate duty assessment failed on all material grounds, and the levy and proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue entries or khasra girdawri do not by themselves prove title or partition, and writ jurisdiction will not be used to reopen disputed factual questions or invalidate otherwise valid tax proceedings on the basis of a belated challenge by a non-participating claimant.

---