SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 216

N.L.UNTWALIA, P.N.BHAGWATI, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Controller Of Estate. Duty, Madras – Appellant
Versus
Alladi Kuppuswamy – Respondent


Advocates:
F.Ramamurthi, G.VENKATARAMA SASTRY, K.R.RAMAMANI, P.L.Juneja, R.Sachthey, S.T.DESAI

Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J. - This appeal by certificate is directed against Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 5, 1969 - Alladi Kuppuswami v. Controller of Estate Duty. Madras, 76 ITR 500 : (AIR 1970 Mad 366) (FB) by which the reference made to the High Court by the Central Board of Revenue was answered in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue. The case involves an interesting and important question of law in respect of ambit and scope of Sections 7 (1) & (2) as also 39 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - hereinafter referred to as the Act. In order to decide the question of law arising in the appeal, it may be necessary to set out briefly the facts of the case. Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer died some time before the passing of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, but during his lifetime he had settled certain properties absolutely on his wife Smt. Alladi Venkalakshmamma - to be referred in short as Smt. Alladi - and he had also declared certain other properties to form part of the joint family properties. Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer - hereafter to be referred to as "Shri Alladi" was a member of the Hindu coparcenary consisting of himself, his wife and three
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" present in the case summaries. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.

Followed / Affirmed:

None explicitly indicated. The case summaries do not mention subsequent treatment or judicial affirmation.

Distinguished / Clarified:

Both cases seem to clarify or interpret specific aspects of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, but there is no explicit mention of them being distinguished from other cases.

Uncertain / No clear treatment:

Potti Lakshmi Perumallu VS Potti Krishnavenamma - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 186: Discusses the interest of a Hindu widow in joint family property as on the date of partition, not her husband's death. The language suggests a legal interpretation, but there is no indication of how subsequent courts have treated this ruling.

Satrughan Isser VS Sabujpari - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 161: States that a widow's interest in coparcenary property vests upon demand for partition and does not terminate upon her death. Again, the treatment by later courts is not specified.

Since there is no explicit information about subsequent judicial treatment, these cases are categorized under uncertain treatment.

Both cases are listed without any indication of how they have been treated in subsequent decisions. Without additional context or references to later rulings, their judicial treatment remains unclear.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top