Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- This is an appeal by certificate. It is directed against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a reference under Section 64 (l) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The question of law referred to the High Court was:

"Whether the value of 25 acres of wet land is exempt from levy of estate duty under Section 24 of Estate Duty Act, 1953?"

2. The material facts of the ease, as can be gathered from the case stated, are these:-

3. One Venkataramayya died in April, 1940 leaving behind him his widow and two sons, who constituted a Hindu undivided family. One of his Sons, namely, Chandrasekhera Rao died in the year 1941, leaving behind him six minor sons and a widow. Subsequently, a partition was effected between the members of the family on 16-6-1943 by a registered partition deed. Under that deed Kotamma, the widow of Venkataramayya, who had a right to inherit her husband s share in the non-agricultural properties as well as the right to be maintained from out of the family income, gave up her right both in the non-agricultural properties, except the right to reside in a portion of the family house as well as her right to be maintained out of the family income. At the same time the other members of the family allotted to her 25 acres of wet land, which she was to enjoy during her lifetime and the same was to devolve after her death on the other members of the former family as per the stipulations in the partition deed. She was not entitled to alienate the property allotted to her share. Kotamma died on April 9, 1958. The authorities under the Act proceeded to levy estate duty on the value of the property allotted to Kotamma under-the partition deed dated 16-6-1943 under Section 7 of the Act. The accountable persons contended that the estate in question is not liable to pay estate duty as it came within the scope of S. 24 of the Act. The departmental authorities, including the Tribunal, rejected that contention. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the question set out above was referred to the High Court. The High Court has answered that question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue has come up in appeal to this Court. The only question for consideration is whether the facts of the present case fall within the scope of Section 24 of the Act

4. Section 7 (l) of the Act says:

"7. (l) Interests ceasing on death: Subject to the provisions of this section, property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the deceased s death to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest, including, in particular a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law." The remaining portions of that section are not relevant for our present purposes.

5. There is no dispute that when Kotamma died her interest in the wet land ceased and that it passed on to the other members of the former joint family as provided in the partition deed. Hence prima facie the present case comes under Section 7 of the Act. Only question is whether the arrangement made under the partition deed can be considered as disposition within the meaning of that expression in Section 24 of the Act. Now let us turn to Section 24 (1). That section reads:

"24 (l) Property reverting to disponer: Where by a disposition of any property an interest is conferred on any person other than the disponer for the life of such person or determinable on his death, the remainder being conferred upon the disponer absolutely, and such person enters into possession of the interest and thence forward retains possession of it, then, on the death of such person, the property shall not be deemed to pass by reason only of its reverter to the disponer in his lifetime."

The remaining portion of this section is also not necess