1988 (3) TMI 159 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds decision on property ownership dispute, invalidating will for joint-family property

Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty. Versus Estate Of Late A. Ramanarayan Patro.

Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty. Versus Estate Of Late A. Ramanarayan Patro. - ITD 027, 338, TTJ 031, 339, Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Will executed by Sri Vasudeva Patro.2. Ownership and inheritance of the property 'Kesava Bagh'.3. Applicability of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.4. Self-effacement of rights by Smt. Shyamala Devi.5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in reconsidering the issue.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Will executed by Sri Vasudeva Patro:The primary issue in this case is the validity of the Will executed by Sri Vasudeva Patro on 23-7-1951. The Will bequeathed properties to his son Ramanarayan Patro, appointing his wife, Smt. Shyamala Devi, as the executrix. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty questioned the validity of the Will, as it was not probated. According to Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, no right as executor or legatee can be established in any court of justice unless probate of the Will has been granted. The Tribunal concluded that the Will was not valid in law concerning the joint-family property 'Kesava Bagh' because it was inherited property, and Sri Vasudeva Patro had no right to will away the entire joint-family property.2. Ownership and inheritance of the property 'Kesava Bagh':The Tribunal examined whether the property 'Kesava Bagh' was owned solely by Ramanarayan Patro or jointly with his mother, Smt. Shyamala Devi. The Assistant Controller argued that the entire property should be included in the estate duty assessment, as the Will purportedly transferred the property solely to Ramanarayan Patro. However, the Tribunal found that the property was inherited from Vasudeva Patro's father, making it joint-family property. Thus, upon Vasudeva Patro's death, the property devolved by intestate succession, with Smt. Shyamala Devi and Ramanarayan Patro each inheriting a half share.3. Applicability of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, which granted Smt. Shyamala Devi a limited estate in the property. This right was enlarged to full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, Smt. Shyamala Devi and Ramanarayan Patro were co-owners of the property, each holding a half share.4. Self-effacement of rights by Smt. Shyamala Devi:The Department argued that Smt. Shyamala Devi had self-effaced her rights in the property in favor of her son, Ramanarayan Patro, thereby making him the full owner. The Tribunal examined the concept of self-effacement, which requires voluntary surrender of rights by the widow. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. Instead, it was established that Smt. Shyamala Devi consistently exercised her rights as a co-owner, as evidenced by various documents, including tax returns, tenancy agreements, and mortgage deeds.5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in reconsidering the issue:The Department contended that the Assistant Controller had the authority to reconsider the issue despite previous income-tax proceedings. However, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Controller's decision, which relied on the earlier income-tax assessment that recognized the co-ownership of the property by Smt. Shyamala Devi and Ramanarayan Patro. The Tribunal concluded that the Assistant Controller's attempt to include the entire property in the estate duty assessment was not justified.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the Appellate Controller's decision to include only 50% of the value of 'Kesava Bagh' in the estate duty assessment. The Tribunal found that Smt. Shyamala Devi and Ramanarayan Patro were co-owners of the property, each holding an equal share, and there was no evidence of self-effacement by Smt. Shyamala Devi.