Judgment

S.P.BHARUCHA, J.

(1) IN Ramanathan Chettiar v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty a division bench of the Madras High court, upon a writ petition, held that Section 34(1(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held that there was no discrimination brought about by Section 34(l)(c) between the members of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family and the members of a Dayabhaga family.

(2) EVEN so, upon a writ petition, another division bench of the Madras High court in, V. Devaki Ammal v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, held Section 34(1(c) to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The latter division bench noted the judgment of the earlier division bench. Indeed, it quoted therefrom. It went on, however, to consider the validity of Section 34(1(c) for the following reasons:

"IF Section 34(1(c) is construed as a provision for aggregation of the benefits accrued to each of the lineal descendants on the death of the deceased, then on the principle laid down in that case the validity of the section has to be upheld. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner, wanted