The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Mysore Cutchi Memons Act 1 of 1943 displaced Hindu law for Cutchi Memons, and the right by birth and survivorship were saved under section 3 of the Act.

Rajendra Babu, J.—After the death of Hajee Mohd. Hussain Sait in 1955, his two sons, namely, Hajee Abdul Sait (assessee) and Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait, claimed in the assessment proceeding under the Estate Duty Act that they belong to the Cutchi Memons sect of Muslims and in the matter of inheritance and succession including rules as to joint family property, the right of the same by birth and devolution thereto by survivor in the civil station area of Bangalore City. Ultimately, the Mysore High Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore, (1968) 69 ITR 45 KAR , and on appeal from the decision, the Supreme Court in the case of The Controller of Estate Duty Mysore, Bangalore Vs. Haji Abdul Sattar Sait and Others, AIR 1972 SC 2229b , upheld their contention that only 1/3rd of the undivided share of Hajee Mohd. Hussain passed on to them on his death for the purpose of assessment under the Estate Duty Act. The Mysore Cutchi Memons Act 1 of 1943 ("the Act" for short), become applicable in the year 1948 after retrocession of the civil area of Bangalore when this law was extended to that area.

2. So far as the assessee is concerned, the law applicable to him is as held in Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore, (1968) 69 ITR 45 KAR and in The Controller of Estate Duty Mysore, Bangalore Vs. Haji Abdul Sattar Sait and Others, AIR 1972 SC 2229b . Indeed, the assessee and his brother being accountable persons under the Estate Duty Act had contended before this court and the Supreme Court that they were governed by rules applicable to the coparcenary property under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. While examining the scope and effect of the law as contemplated in Cutchi Memons Act. This court in the case of Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore, (1968) 69 ITR 45 KAR , observed as follows (at page 52):

"By virtue of section 3, the position would be that if the assessee before us are right in their case that they are governed by the Hindu law relating to joint family property or coparcenary property involving the doctrine of the right by birth and devolution by survivorship, then both the accountable persons having been born long coming into force of the Act must be taken to have acquired a right by birth in their father, Mohammad Hussain's property, which is not taken ways but preserved by section 3 of the Act, and that should they fail in their case, any reference to any section of the Act would be unnecessary from the point of view of either of the contending parties before us."

3. This court held that the assessees were governed by the rules Hindu law in the matter of the right of a son by birth and devolution by survivorship and had acquired such rights long before 1948 which were not taken away by virtue of section 3 of the Act. This aspect of the matter was, in fact, approved by the Supreme Court in the case of The Controller of Estate Duty Mysore, Bangalore Vs. Haji Abdul Sattar Sait and Others, AIR 1972 SC 2229b , wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows (at page 69):

"If the parties as aforesaid were governed in matters of property, succession and inheritance by the rules of Hindu law including the rules as to joint family property, its distribution according to the rule of survivorship and the right of a son in it by birth. The High Court would be right in its view that the accountable persons having been born long before 1948, had already acquired a right by birth in the property held by their father, a right expressly saved by section 3 of the Act. There was. Therefore, no question of that interest passing to them on the death of their father as envisaged by section 5 of the Estate Duty act, in this view, the judgment of the High Court under challenge has to be upheld..."

4. The Income Tax Officer assessed the assessee in the assessed in the status of an individual as it had been done in the ca