Void gift of coparcenary property and rectification of estate duty assessment upheld under settled Hindu law and error apparent doctrine.

A coparcener cannot validly gift his undivided interest in Mitakshara joint family property, and consent of other adult coparceners does not cure that defect; section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to testamentary disposition, not inter vivos gifts, so the settlement deed was void ab initio. An estate duty assessment treating that void transfer as valid contained a mistake apparent from the record, because the error was patent and not debatable; the rectification power under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act was therefore properly invoked to include the land in the deceased's estate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a gift of undivided coparcenary property executed by two coparceners in favour of a coparcener's wife could be treated as valid. (ii) Whether the Assistant Controller could revise the original estate duty assessment under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 on the ground of error apparent on the record.

Issue (i): Whether a gift of undivided coparcenary property executed by two coparceners in favour of a coparcener's wife could be treated as valid.

Analysis: Under settled Hindu law, a coparcener in a Mitakshara family cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in joint family property, except within narrow recognised exceptions. The principle rests on preservation of the family estate for all existing and future coparceners. Consent of the adult coparceners does not validate a gift of the joint family property, because the transaction remains contrary to the basic rule governing coparcenary rights. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals only with testamentary disposition and does not extend to inter vivos gifts.

Conclusion: The settlement deed was void ab initio and could not be treated as a valid transfer.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assistant Controller could revise the original estate duty assessment under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 on the ground of error apparent on the record.

Analysis: A mistake apparent from the record is an obvious and patent error and not one that depends on elaborate argument or a debatable legal position. Since the gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest is a settled nullity, the original assessment, which treated the transfer as valid and excluded the land from the estate, contained a manifest error. The authority was therefore competent to invoke section 61 and correct the assessment by including the value of the land in the estate of the deceased.

Conclusion: The revision under section 61 was within jurisdiction and was valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned gift was invalid in Hindu law and the rectification of the estate duty assessment was legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in Mitakshara joint family property is void ab initio, and an assessment based on treating such a void transaction as valid contains an error apparent on the record that can be rectified under the governing rectification provision.

---