Impartible tarwad interest and estate duty: cesser on death can attract section 7(1), while higher counsel fee may be allowed.
A member of an impartible Moplah tarwad governed by Marumakkattayam law was treated as having an existing proprietary interest in the tarwad property, even though no individual member could demand partition or a defined share. The cesser of that interest on death was held to enlarge the benefit of the surviving members, bringing the case within the wide language of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The court also held that the estate duty proceedings were not without jurisdiction. In a separate point, Rule 16 of Order V of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, applied to Article 226 matters, so counsel fee could be fixed above the usual maximum where special difficulty, importance, or unusually great work justified it.
Issues: (i) whether a member of an impartible Moplah tarwad governed by the Marumakkattayam law had an interest in the tarwad property so that, on death, section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act applied; (ii) whether the High Court had power to award counsel fee above the maximum mentioned in the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue (i): whether a member of an impartible Moplah tarwad governed by the Marumakkattayam law had an interest in the tarwad property so that, on death, section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act applied.
Analysis: The tarwad property was held by all members as a community of property, though the family was impartible and individual members had no right to compel partition. The Court held that a member had an existing proprietary interest in the tarwad property, even if the interest was not a defined share capable of separate enjoyment. On death, that interest ceased, and the cesser enlarged the benefit of the remaining members. The inclusive language of section 7(1), read with the statutory scheme, was held wide enough to cover such an interest, and the absence of a power of disposal did not take the case outside the provision. The Court also held that the proceeding before the estate duty authorities was not without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The deceased member's interest in the impartible Moplah tarwad property fell within section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, and the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge failed.
Issue (ii): whether the High Court had power to award counsel fee above the maximum mentioned in the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis: The Court held that Rule 16 of Order V of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, which permits a higher fee in cases of special difficulty, importance, or unusually great work, was applicable to proceedings under Article 226. The specific maxima in the Article 226 rules did not exclude the operation of that enabling provision.
Conclusion: The Court had jurisdiction to fix counsel fee at a figure higher than Rs. 250.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the estate duty question, the writ was declined, and the fee order was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A member of an impartible tarwad may still have an interest in the property, and the cesser of that interest on death can attract section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act where the remaining members obtain an accrued benefit.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
