Statutory estate duty charge survives private transfer, but payment out of sale proceeds must be sought through proper procedure.

Estate duty on immovable property remained a first charge unless expressly released by the Controller under the statute. Partition decrees, apportionment of liability among accountable persons, and private dealings with the property, including a mortgage and subsequent sale, did not displace the statutory charge, and no estoppel could operate against the statute. The charge therefore continued to bind the property and could not be defeated by transfer or sale. However, the application for disbursement of the court sale proceeds was not the proper procedural route, so the request for payment out in satisfaction of the duty was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the estate duty charge under section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act continued to subsist over the properties notwithstanding the partition decree, the apportionment of liability among accountable persons, and the mortgage sale. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled, in this application, to obtain payment of the court sale proceeds in pro tanto satisfaction of the outstanding estate duty.

Issue (i): Whether the estate duty charge under section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act continued to subsist over the properties notwithstanding the partition decree, the apportionment of liability among accountable persons, and the mortgage sale.

Analysis: The estate duty payable on the deceased's immovable property was held to be a first charge under section 74(1), and that charge could be released only by the Controller acting under section 74(3). Mere apportionment of liabilities among accountable persons, or a consent decree in a partition suit, did not amount to a statutory release. The Court held that there can be no estoppel against a statute and that private transfer of charged property, including a mortgage created free of the charge, remained void against the revenue claim. The subsequent court sale could not defeat the subsisting statutory charge.

Conclusion: The statutory charge continued to subsist and had not been released under section 74(3); the mortgage and consequential sale could not prevail against the revenue's claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled, in this application, to obtain payment of the court sale proceeds in pro tanto satisfaction of the outstanding estate duty.

Analysis: Although the revenue's charge was held to remain enforceable in law, the Court found that the present application was not the proper mode for directing payment of the sale proceeds. The petitioner was left to pursue enforcement of the statutory charge by appropriate proceedings in accordance with law rather than by this application for disbursement of the purchase money in court.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought in this application.

Final Conclusion: The statutory charge for estate duty was affirmed as continuing against the properties, but the requested direction for payment out of the sale proceeds was refused, leaving the petitioner to seek enforcement through due process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory charge under the Estate Duty Act survives private transfers and cannot be treated as released except by an express statutory act of the Controller; nevertheless, enforcement must be sought by the proper legal procedure and not by an application that is not maintainable in that form.

---