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 had a half share in the partnership. The other two partners namely Jailal and Hansraj had each 1/4th share. On the 27th March, 1957 Maharaj Mal made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000/- to his son, Lalit Kumar, and of Rs. 50,000/- to his wife, Kamlavati. In the books of the partnership firm the sums of Rs. 1,50,000/- were debited in the account of Maharaj Mal and credited to the accounts of Lalit Kumar and Kamlavati Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Lalit Kumar and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Kamlavati. Almost simultaneously with effect from 28th March, 1957 as per the instrument of partnership dated the 2nd April, 1957 Lalit Kumar was taken as a partner in the firm of M/s. Maharaj Mal Hans Raj by giving him 1/4th share out of the half share of Maharaj Mal. In other words, with effect from the said date there were four partners in the firm each holding 1/4th share.

4. On the 17th December, 1957, Hans Raj died and in his place his widow Smt. Rup Rani was taken as a partner in the firm getting 1/4th share, the share of her husband. Maharaj Mal died on the 9th January, 1962. On his death the firm was again reconstituted with Jailal and Rup Rani each retaining 1/4th share, Lalit Kumar getting 3/8th share, i.e., 1/4th his own share augmented by half of 1/4th share of deceased Maharaj Mal. The remaining half of Maharaj Mals share i.e. 1/8th was given to Kamlavati.

5. The Revenue Authorities relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Clifford John Chick v. Commr. of Stamp Duty (1959) 37 ITR (ED) 89 as also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rash Mohan Chatterjee v. Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal (1964) 52 ITR (ED) 1 held that the said sums of Rs. 1,50,000/- were includible for the purposes of the estate Duty. The accountable person took the matter in further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which took the view that the provisions of S. 10 of the Act were not attracted to the two amounts of gifts made by the deceased to his wife and son and, therefore, the accountable persons were not liable to pay any estate duty on them. The Tribunal on being asked by the revenue made a reference to the High Court under S. 64 (1) of the Act and referred the following question of law for its opinion : -

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of S. 10 of Estate Duty Act did apply to the gifts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and of Rs. 50,000/- made by the deceased to his son and wife respectively?"

6. On a consideration of the various authorities the High Court has affirmed the view of the Tribunal and hence the appeal.

7. Although S. 10 of the Act came up for consideration of this Court in many cases wherein several English decisions were reviewed and the law was laid down as precisely as was possible to be done on the f