Contingent trust transfer defeated estate duty inclusion where consent was never obtained before death.

The 1/6th share in a trust fund was held not to form part of the deceased's estate for estate duty purposes because the transfer was expressly contingent on the consent of the deceased's mother and His Highness. Until that consent was obtained, section 9(2) kept the official trustee holding the share on trust, so the interest had not vested in the deceased during his lifetime. As no vesting occurred before death, the property in that share could not be treated as having passed on death, and it was excluded from the principal value of the estate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of the deceased's 1/6th share in the trust fund was includible in the principal value of his estate under the Royal Family (Baroda) Trust Fund (Repealing) Act, 1956 (Bombay Act No. IV of 1957).

Analysis: Under section 7(1)(b)(i), transfer of the 1/6th part was expressly made dependent on the consent of the deceased's mother and His Highness. Section 9(2) continued the official trustee's holding of the relevant part on trust until transfer in accordance with section 7. As the required consent had not been obtained during the deceased's lifetime, the 1/6th part had not vested in him. On that footing, the property in that share could not be said to have passed on his death for estate duty purposes.

Conclusion: The 1/6th share in the trust fund was not includible in the deceased's estate, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---