E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, N.L.UNTWALIA, R.S.PATHAK
Controller Of Estate Duty, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu And Kashmir, U. P. , Chandigarh And Patiala – Appellant
Versus
Kamlavati And Jai Gopal Mehra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
UNTWALIA, J. — These two appeals by certificate filed by the Controller of Estate Duty are from the Judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Both the appeals have been heard together as a common question of law is involved in them. It relates to the interpretation and applicability of S. 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act.
2. We shall first proceed to state the facts and discuss the law in Civil Appeal 2527 of 1972. Even though the respondent, Smt. Kamlavati, was not represented in this appeal, Mr. S.T. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant, assisted the court very ably and fairly. In the other appeal, being Civil Appeal 2528 of 1972, Shri Jai Gopal Mehra, the respondent, was represented by Mr. Bhagirathi Das. The main judgment of the Full Bench of High Court is in this Civil Appeal, and it has followed the ratio of this decision in the other appeal also. We, however, find it convenient to first discuss the question of law with reference to the facts of Civil Appeal 2527 of 1972.
3. Maharaj Mal, the deceased, with whose estate we are concerned in this appeal, was a partner in a partnership firm styled as M/s. Maharaj Mal Hans Raj. Maharaj Mal
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.