Residential use exemption extends to a deceased's share in a house even without solitary occupation.

Exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act was treated as dependent on whether the property, or the relevant part of it, was used as a residence, not on the deceased living there in solitary occupation. Residential use by the deceased with family or co-owners was sufficient, because a narrower reading would defeat the object of the relief. On the facts, the deceased stayed in the Baroda house when on leave or otherwise at Baroda, and his residential use of the 1/4th share was established. The exemption was therefore available in respect of that share.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act was available in respect of the deceased's share in a house used by him for residence although he did not reside there alone.

Analysis: The exemption was construed as turning on whether the property, or the relevant part of it, was used exclusively as a residence, not on whether the deceased occupied it in solitary possession. A narrow reading that confined relief only to cases where the deceased resided there alone would defeat the legislative purpose, since residence with family or co-owners would also satisfy the residential character of the use. On the facts, the deceased occupied the Baroda house whenever he was on leave or otherwise at Baroda, and the residential use of his 1/4th share was established.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 33(1)(n) was held available to the accountable persons in respect of the value of the deceased's 1/4th share in the Baroda property used for his residence.

---