https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719 A general power of appointment was treated as distinct from property and, by itself, did not make the donee owner of the subject matter. Probate duty under Article 11 of Schedule 1 to the Court-fees Act was chargeable only on the amount or value of the property in respect of which probate was granted, and the later valuation form did not clearly enlarge that charge to property affected only by such a power. Section 91 of the Succession Act likewise indicated that the power remained separate from owned property unless a contrary intention appeared. On that basis, the statute was not construed to extend the duty by implication, and property subject only to a general power of appointment was not liable to probate duty. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:37:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719 A general power of appointment was treated as distinct from property and, by itself, did not make the donee owner of the subject matter. Probate duty under Article 11 of Schedule 1 to the Court-fees Act was chargeable only on the amount or value of the property in respect of which probate was granted, and the later valuation form did not clearly enlarge that charge to property affected only by such a power. Section 91 of the Succession Act likewise indicated that the power remained separate from owned property unless a contrary intention appeared. On that basis, the statute was not construed to extend the duty by implication, and property subject only to a general power of appointment was not liable to probate duty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719