Estate duty deduction for daughters' marriage expenses rejected as contingent liability, not a present legally enforceable debt.

Provision claimed for the marriage expenses of unmarried dependent daughters was not allowable as a deductible debt in computing estate duty under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act. A debt was required to be an existing, legally enforceable obligation, not a contingent liability dependent on a future event. Although Hindu law principles and section 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 were considered, the liability for marriage expenses was treated as a recognised legal claim rather than a present debt chargeable against the estate. The deduction therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether provision claimed for the marriage expenses of unmarried dependent daughters of the deceased could be allowed as a deductible debt in computing estate duty liability.

Analysis: The claim was examined in the context of section 44 of the Estate Duty Act and the relevant principles governing what constitutes a debt. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that a debt must be an existing, legally enforceable obligation and not a merely contingent liability dependent on a future event. The applicable Hindu law provisions were also considered in the light of section 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which overrides textual Hindu law to the extent provision is made by the statute. The liability for daughters' marriage expenses was treated as a right capable of recognition in law, but not as a present debt chargeable against the estate for the purpose of deduction under the Estate Duty Act.

Conclusion: The deduction was not allowable under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, and the claim failed.

---