The Controller of Estate Duty, Madras vs Estate of Late Guruswami Mudaliar and Another

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—We do not consider that the questions propounded do really arise on the facts and the circumstances of the

case. Let us take the case as presented by the department itself. The deceased had put up a superstructure on a piece of vacant land which

admittedly belonged to his wife. Later he gifted the superstructure to his wife. The question that is sought to be raised is whether the gift is one

which would come within the provisions of S. 10 of the Estate Duty Act. It is contended that inasmuch as the deceased, till the end of his life, was

living with his wife in the building in question it should be held that there were certain rights in him in regard to the property. We are, however,

unable to agree. The living of the deceased with his wife in the building is consistent with their relationship and not because that he retained any

interest in the property, namely, in the superstructure which he had absolutely gifted to his wife. There are no words in the deed of gift to support

any theory that he reserved any interest in the property to himself. Under the circumstances we see no reason for directing any reference. This

application fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150.

Application dismissed.