SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, ACTG. C.J.I., V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Satyanarayan S. Mody, Appellant
Versus
Controller of Estate Duty, Delhi and Rajasthan, New Delhi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 438 of 1967, D/- 31-7-1969
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. D. Sharma and M. D. Bhargava, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor General of India (M/s. T. A. Ramachandran, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Section 10 - Gift deed - Declaration of - Possession and enjoyment of the gifted property - Purnabai addressed a letter to Manager of the Bank enclosing a copy of the declaration of gift and intimated that her grandson was sole owner of the amount of two fixed deposit receipts and till Suryakant S. Mody attained the age of majority the receipts should remain in joint names as they then stood - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case the sum of Rs. 6,85,193 was correctly included in estate of deceased as property deemed to pass on her death under Section 10 of Act, 1953 - Held, It is true that third receipt was encashed during life time of Purnabai, and the amount was invested in the name of Suryakant alone. But the encashment and reinvestment were within two years of the death of Purnabai and the amounts so reinvested were liable to be included in the estate of Purnabai - There is also no evidence that in obtaining the receipts in the joint names Purnabai acted as a guardian of Suryakant nor that she was a benamidar of Suryakant. We are of view that High Court was right in answering question against the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
SHAH, Ag. C. J. :- Purnabai widow of Sagarmal Mody held on April 1, 1953 three deposit receipts of the aggregate face value of Rs. 6,26,724-14-0 with the State Bank of Bikaner. By her letter dated July 22, 1952 Purnabai informed the Bank that she intended to make a gift of the amounts of two out of the three receipts to Suryakant son of her adopted son Satyanarayana, and requested that the receipts be renewed for three months in the joint names of
"Purnabai Sagarmal Mody and/or Suryakant S. Mody - payable to either or survivor."
and that the renewed fixed deposit receipts be sent to Satyanarayana at Bombay. Pursuant to this letter two fresh receipts were issued on August 3, 1953 for Rs.5,00,000 and 45,793-4-0. It appears that a receipt for Rs. 80,931-10-0 was previously obtained in the joint names of Purnabai and Suryakant on July 4, 1953.
2. On August 16, 1953 Purnabai executed a deed of gift in favour of Suryakant in respect of the three receipts containing the following recitals:
"Out of natural love and affection I have towards the said Suryakant son of Satyanarayana I hand over to the said Satyanarayana as the father and natural guardian of the said Suryakant Fixed Deposit receipts total for Rs. 6,26,724-14-0. * * * * F. D. R. No. 222/8293, dated 3rd August, 1953 for Rs. 45,793-4-0, F. D. R. No. 221/8292, dated 3rd August, 1953 for Rs. 5,00,000 of the Bank of Bikaner Ltd., Jaipur and F. D. R. No. 11446, dated 4th July, 1953 for Rs. 80, 931-10-0 of Bank of Bikaner Ltd., Jhunjhunu in the name of Purnabai Sagarmall and Suryakant Satyanarayana Mody payable to either or survivor as and by way of gift to the said Suryakant on the 15th day of August 1953 and that the said Satyanarayana for and on behalf of and as the natural guardian of the said Suryakant accepted the said gift of Rs. 6,26,724-14-0 * * * gifted by me as aforesaid."
The gift deed contained a confirmation by Satyanarayana that he had accepted the gift for and on behalf of and as natural guardian of Suryakant, "to the intent and effect that the said Suryakant shall be the absolute owner of the sum gifted."
3. On August 17, 1953 Purnabai addressed a letter to the Manager of the Bank enclosing a copy of the declaration of gift and intimated that her grandson Suryakant was the sole owner of the amount of the two fixed deposit receipts and till Suryakant S. Mody attained the age of majority the receipts should remain in the joint names as they then stood.
4. From time to time, Purnabai presented the receipts for renewal when they matured and obtained fresh receipts in the joint names of herself and Suryakant. On August 25, 1955 the receipt for Rs. 80,931,10-0 was encashed and out of the amount of Rs. 86,732 realized, Rs. 5,000 were invested in the name of Suryakant in National Savings Certificates. The balance was also deposited alone with a firm in Bombay also in the name of Suryakant alone. The other two receipts were renewed in the joint names of Purnabai and Suryakant.
5. After the death of Purnabai on February 15, 1956, the two receipts were encashed by Suryakant alone. The Assistant Controller of Estates Duty in proceedings for assessment of estate duty held inter alia that possession and enjoyment of the gifted property was not assumed by the donee to the entire exclusion of the donor, and on that account the amount of the two receipts and interest thereon formed part of the estate of Purnabai and was liable; to estate duty. Regarding the third receipt for Rs. 80,931-10-0 the Assistant Controller observed that even though the earlier receipt was discharged on August 25, 1955 i. e., within two years of the death of Purnabai and the amount was invested in the name of Suryakant, by virtue of the provisions of the Estate Duty Act the amount held in the name of Suryakant alone, was for assessment of estate duty liable to be included in the estate of Purnabai.
6. In appeal the Central Board of revenue confirmed the order. The Board held that at all material times duri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.