Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- These appeals by certificate raise a common question of law, namely whether the compensation distributed to the junior members in a zamindari family under S. 45 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, as adopted by Andhra Pradesh (to be hereinafter called the Act ), can be taken into consideration in computing the net wealth of the family? For the purpose of deciding that question it would be sufficient if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1628 of 1970.

2. In this case we are concerned with the net wealth of the family of former zamindar of Venkatagiri, for the assessment year 1957-58. The Wealth Tax Officer, while completing the assessment for the year in question included in the assessment the amount of final compensation receivable from the Government not only by the holder of the estate but also by his sons. The amount of compensation as per data sheet made available to the Wealth Tax Officer worked out to Rs. 6,16,4l6/-. From this amount the Wealth Tax Officer deducted 1/6th which was payable to the maintenanceholders and brought the balance of Rs. 4,93,133/-, as the net wealth of the assessee H.U.F., to tax. The holder of the estate contended that the compensation payable to his sons under Section 45 of the Act cannot be considered as the wealth of the H.U.F., But that contention was rejected by the Wealth Tax Officer. The order of the Wealth Tax Officer was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the compensation payable to the sons of the holder cannot be considered as the wealth of the assessee. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was affirmed by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal submitted the following three questions to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the compensation amount of Rs. 4,93,133/- due to the family on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58 under the Madras Estates (Abolition and. Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, did not form part of the Wealth of the joint family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of Venkatagiri Venkatagiri?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- due to the family on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58 under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, did not form part of the wealth of the joint family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of Venkatagiri, Venkatagiri?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rupees 5,74,158/- was the liability of Hindu Undivided family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of Venkatagiri, Venkatagiri?

3. The High Court answered all these questions in favour of the assessee. Thereafter these appeals have been brought, as mentioned earlier, after obtaining certificates from the High Court.

4. The Venkatagiri zamindari was an Estate within the meaning of the Act. Under the customary law, though the Estate belonged to the family of the holder, the holder for the time being was fully entitled not only to deal with the income of the Estate but also with its corpus. The junior members had no right to claim any share either in the income or in the corpus. Their right to maintenance, if any, was regulated by customary law. The only right the junior members had in such an estate was the right of succession by survivorship in the evens of the holder dying without alienating the Estate. The nature of such an Estate has been considered by this Court in Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu v. S