Estate duty on widow's undivided joint family interest was rejected because the share was not a coparcenary interest.

A widow's undivided interest in Mitakshara joint family property acquired under section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 was analysed as a statutory substitution for her husband's interest, not a coparcenary share. Because the interest remained undefined and fluctuating until partition, it did not relate to any definite portion of the joint family income and, on the widow's death without partition, merged back into the coparcenary property rather than passing by devolution. On that reasoning, section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was said to apply only where cessation of interest can be measured by reference to whole or definite income, which was not possible here, and the inclusive limb of section 7(1) was inapplicable because the widow was not a coparcener.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of the deceased widow's undivided interest in joint family property, acquired under section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, was chargeable to estate duty under section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 on her death.

Analysis: The widow's interest under section 3(2) was a statutory substitution for her husband's interest, but it was not a coparcenary interest in the Mitakshara sense. Until partition, the interest remained undefined, fluctuating, and not referable to any definite part of the joint family income. On the widow's death without partition, the interest merged back into the coparcenary property and did not pass by devolution within the meaning of section 5. The scheme of sections 7(1), 39, 40 and related valuation provisions shows that a charge under section 7(1) arises only where the cesser of interest can be measured by reference to whole or definite income, which was not possible here. The inclusive part of section 7(1) also did not apply because the widow was not herself a coparcener.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the widow's one-fourth share in the estate as property deemed to pass on death under section 7(1) was not justified, and the answer was in favour of the accountable persons.

---