SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 64 (3) of the E. D. Act, 1953, the. following questions have been referred to this court:"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the trust came into effect during the lifetime of the deceased ?

( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the deceased resided in one of the trust properties before his death, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was no reservation of interest by the deceased in the property within the meaning of Section 12 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953?

( 3 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the deed of trust, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the trust did not have amongst its purposes the maintenance of the sons of the deceased ?

( 4 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the word 'and' appearing in the Explanation to Section 12 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not used in a disjunctive sense and that the reservation of interest for the maintenance must be both for the settlor and his relatives ?

( 5 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the word 'children' appearing in Section 27 (7) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, would not include adults?"2. These questions arose on the demise of one Rishikesh Roy on the 29th July, 1962. During his lifetime he executed a deed of trust on the 10th February, 1954. The properties in the 3rd and 4th schedules to the said trust were settled on trust. Under the said term, during the lifetime of the settlor and his wife, Sm. Purnasashi Dassi, the trustees were to hold the properties in the 3rd schedule upon the trust declared under part II, Clause 6, that is, the settlor's five sons were to be the beneficiaries with reference to the said property. This document was considered not to be clear enough to bring about the settlor's intention. So, soon thereafter, on the 26th November, 1954, another deed of trust was executed which provided that the trustees shall hold the trust properties in the 3rd and 4th schedules of the deed of trust dated the 10th February, 1954, even during the lifetime of the settlor and his wife, Sm. Purnasashi Dassi, upon trust therein mentioned. It would be proper, in our opinion, to set out the terms upon which the trustees were to hold the property which are as follows :"1. I do hereby confirm that the said trustees, Nirmal Kumar Roy and Sankar Lal Roy, shall hold the trust properties described in the third and fourth schedules of the said deed of trust dated the 10th day of February, 1954, and a list whereof is also set out in the schedule hereunder during the lifetime of myself (settlor) and my said wife, Sm. Purnasashi Dassi, upon trust therein mentioned. 2. The rents and issues and profits arising out the said trust properties including half share in the business of Roy Cousin and Co. all fully described in the third and fourth schedules of the said deed of trust dated the 10th day of February, 1954, and a list whereof is also set out in the schedule hereunder written during the lifetime of myself (settlor) and/or my wife, Sm. Purnasashi Dassi, shall be. collected and realised by the said trustees, Nirmal Kumar Roy and Sankar Lal Roy, who after first deducting therefrom all municipal rates, taxes, rents, revenues and other outgoings due and payable in respect of same and charges for repairing and reconstruction of same and also all other costs and charges incurred for realisation and collection thereof will distribute and divide the balance thereof at their discretion equally among my five sons, viz. , Profulla Kumar Roy, Nirmal Kumar Roy, Sankar Lal Roy, Sachindra Nath Roy and Samir Kumar Roy so that each of my said sons will get an equal share thereof. 3.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document