1978 (7) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the lands measuring 43 acres, 28 1/2 cents were acquired by the minor son of the deceased and accordingly its value to the extent of deceased's half share is not includible in the estate passing ' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the properties devolved on the deceased through a will were ancestral properties in which the deceased's minor son acquired an interest and accordingly only 1/8th value of the properties is includible in the 'estate passing' and not 1/4th share as adopted by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-28 1/2 cents in favour of coparcener (son) was voidable. The original settlement covered the land in ac. 26-88 cents and out of the income and accretions from out of the same, land in ac. 16-40 cents were purchased. In Hindu law, the consent of coparceners is a sine qua non for a valid gift as otherwise the settlement is voidable. The transaction per se is not void. The document of gift or settlement dated June 8, 1957, therefore, was not void. The beneficiary under the deed was none other than a coparcener, the minor son of the donor. Therefore, following the dicta laid down in the case of Rathamma v. Venkata Subbamma [1977] 1 APLJ 139, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the lands in ac. 43-28 1/2 cents vested in the (mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the deceased, and it is represented, under the provisions of the G.T. Act "the gift" suffered the tax. Whether the fact of not lending the money for interest by the guardian donor nullifies the gift under s. 10 of the Act is in question. That the father of the donee minors was the guardian is not disputed. The father of the minors thus had the control over the monies. It is significant to note that the control is not that of a coparcener in legal parlance but that of a guardian. In such circumstances the two aspects of s. 10 resolve in favour of the assessee on the facts of the case. We agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the circumstances. The third question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee. The answe....