Notional partition under estate duty law must include the son's wife's share, and writ relief was not barred by reference remedy.

For aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, the notional partition must be worked out under the applicable Hindu law principles, and the wife of the deceased's son cannot be ignored in determining the shares because her entitlement on partition forms part of the relevant computation. The estate duty basis was therefore required to be recomputed after including that share only to the extent legally permissible. The existence of a reference remedy under section 64 did not automatically bar a writ petition under article 226, because an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where it is not equally efficacious and the dispute raises a pure question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the share that would have fallen to the wife of the deceased's son on a notional partition of the smaller Hindu undivided family had to be taken into account. (ii) Whether the availability of a reference under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 barred the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, for aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the share that would have fallen to the wife of the deceased's son on a notional partition of the smaller Hindu undivided family had to be taken into account.

Analysis: The principal value of the deceased's interest had first to be determined on a notional partition under section 39(1) of the Act. For working out aggregation under section 34(1)(c), the same Hindu law principles governing partition of a Mitakshara joint family had to be applied. On a partition between the son and his son, the son's wife would also be entitled to a share equal to that of a son, and her share could not be ignored merely because she was not a lineal descendant. The statute did not override the Hindu law rule for ascertaining the shares of the coparceners and other persons entitled to a share on partition.

Conclusion: The share of the son's wife had to be included in the notional partition, and only the lineal descendants' shares as correctly worked out could be aggregated.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of a reference under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 barred the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction and depends on the facts of the case. The petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate route, which failed on the ground that no appeal lay from the rectification order. A reference under section 64 would not have afforded the same immediate relief as a writ petition, and the dispute raised a pure question of law. In these circumstances, the writ petition was maintainable.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy did not bar the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The rectification order was quashed to the extent it had wrongly included the daughter-in-law's share for aggregation, and the estate duty was directed to be reassessed on the correct basis.

Ratio Decidendi: For aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the notional partition must be worked out in accordance with applicable Hindu law principles, including any share that a person other than a lineal descendant would take on partition, and the existence of a reference remedy does not invariably bar relief under article 226 where that remedy is not equivalent or efficacious.

---