Valid adoption and estate duty jurisdiction: property vested in the adopted son could not be assessed, and writ relief was available.

A valid adoption by a widow under Hindu law relates back to the death of the adoptive father and divests the widow of any disposing power over the property, which vests in the adopted son. On that footing, the Court held that the Estate Duty Officer had no jurisdiction to assess property that had already vested in the petitioner as the adopted son, because the widow retained no estate or interest capable of being brought within the Estate Duty Act's deeming provisions. The availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent writ relief where the authority was acting without inherent jurisdiction. The notice and proposed assessment were quashed insofar as they concerned that property, and prohibition was issued against further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Estate Duty Officer could proceed to assess, under the Estate Duty Act, property that had vested in the petitioner as the validly adopted son of the deceased husband, and whether a writ of prohibition could issue when the officer lacked inherent jurisdiction over such property.

Analysis: Property that passes on death is chargeable to estate duty, and property is also deemed to pass if the deceased was competent to dispose of it at the time of death. The Court held that, under Hindu law, a valid adoption by a widow relates back to the death of the adoptive father and divests the widow of disposing power over the property which vests in the adopted son. On the facts, after the petitioner's adoption the estate of Ramaiah Chetty vested in him, and Lakshmi Devamma retained no estate or interest in that property capable of being brought within the statutory deeming provisions. The Court further held that the availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ relief where the authority was proceeding without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice and proposed assessment were quashed insofar as they related to the estate of Ramaiah Chetty that had vested in the petitioner, and a writ of prohibition was issued restraining further proceedings on that property. The petition succeeded with costs.

---