Residential house exemption under estate duty extends to a deceased co-owner's share where the property is used for residence.

Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was construed to require a house to be used as a residence, but not occupied exclusively by the deceased to the exclusion of family members or co-owners. A narrow reading that would deny exemption merely because others also lived in the house was rejected as inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the relief. On that construction, the exemption extended to the deceased's one-fourth share in the portion of the jointly owned Baroda house used by him for residence, and the contrary view of the lower authorities was reversed.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was available in respect of the deceased's one-fourth share in the Baroda house used by him for residence.

Analysis: The property was a residential house jointly owned by the deceased and his three brothers, and the deceased used it for residence whenever he was at Baroda. The expression in section 33(1)(n) was construed as requiring the house to be used exclusively as a residence, not that it must be occupied by the deceased alone to the exclusion of family members or co-occupants. A narrow construction that would deny relief merely because others also resided in the house was rejected as inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption was held available to the extent of the deceased's one-fourth share in the portion of the house used by him for residence, and the disallowance by the lower authorities was reversed.

---