https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289389 A member of an impartible Moplah tarwad governed by Marumakkattayam law was treated as having an existing proprietary interest in the tarwad property, even though no individual member could demand partition or a defined share. The cesser of that interest on death was held to enlarge the benefit of the surviving members, bringing the case within the wide language of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The court also held that the estate duty proceedings were not without jurisdiction. In a separate point, Rule 16 of Order V of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, applied to Article 226 matters, so counsel fee could be fixed above the usual maximum where special difficulty, importance, or unusually great work justified it. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289389 A member of an impartible Moplah tarwad governed by Marumakkattayam law was treated as having an existing proprietary interest in the tarwad property, even though no individual member could demand partition or a defined share. The cesser of that interest on death was held to enlarge the benefit of the surviving members, bringing the case within the wide language of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The court also held that the estate duty proceedings were not without jurisdiction. In a separate point, Rule 16 of Order V of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, applied to Article 226 matters, so counsel fee could be fixed above the usual maximum where special difficulty, importance, or unusually great work justified it. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289389