The main legal point established in the judgment is the nature of the liability for payment of estate duty and the validity of the assessment proceedings against the legal representatives.

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.

1. One Paramboor Unnian died on 24th April 1969. His estate devolved under the Muhammadan Law on the petitioner and 11 other legal representatives. As no account of the estate was delivered under section 53 or section 56 of the Estate Duty Act a best of judgment assessment was made under section 58 clause (4) determining the estate duty payable as Rs. 20,755.50. Ext. P-1 dated 29th September 1972 is a copy of the said order. The eleven other legal representatives, excluding the petitioner, challenged Ext. P-1 in O.P. No. 4994 of 1972 filed on 7th November 1972 on the ground that the assessment order was passed without notice to all the legal representatives. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the judgment in that Original Petition, where proceedings for recovery were challenged. It was observed.

it is not necessary to go into the merits of this petition since it is said that reassessment proceedings under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, has been commenced. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. No costs.

The sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited as condition for stay pending the disposal of this petition may be appropriated towards the estate duty that may be found payable. The petitioners agree to this course.

It is stated that there was an application for review (R.P. No. 52 of 1974) of judgment at the instance of the Revenue and that the same was dismissed on the ground that against the dismissal of the writ petition the Revenue cannot possibly have any grievance. Neither a copy of the petition for review nor a copy of the order, has been exhibited to ascertain the nature of the order, and the grounds for review. The controller issued Ext. P-3 notice dated 29th May 1973 proposing to reassess the estate on the ground that the property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment or been under assessed or been assessed at too low a rate. The petitioner was called upon to submit an account of all the property in respect of which estate duty was payable. By Ext. P-4 the petitioner was summoned to the place and at the time indicated, to produce the documents or other evidence in support of the accounts filed by him under section 53/56 of the Act. By Ext. P-5, dated 13th March 1974 attention was called to certain discrepancies in the statement of accounts submitted by the petitioner and to the basis on which the Officer proposed to value the property. Objections and evidence, if any, were invited. It was at this stage that the petitioner filed this writ petition praying:

(a) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from recovery of the estate duty relating to the estate of the deceased Paramboor unniyan pending final order of assessment pursuant to Ext. P-3 and in accordance with law and

(b) to issue such other writ, order or direction as the court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under the Muhammadan Law, on the death of a deceased owner, his estate devolves eo instanti on the heirs in definite shares; that the principle of representation is unknown to the Muslim Law and that proceedings taken against the estate with notice to some only of the legal representatives cannot he valid and cannot form the foundation for coercive steps. Next, it was argued that the liability of the legal representatives of the deceased was joint and several; that by reason of Ext. P-2 judgment and the undertaking of the Revenue recorded therein, the joint and several liability of the remaining 11 legal representatives other than the petitioner had ceased, and therefore the joint and several liability of all the legal representatives cannot survive in the petitioner alone or be enforced against him. Lastly it was contended that the demand notice issued under section 73 of the Act is for the entire amount of estate duty payable in respect of the whole of the estate of the deceased, and that therefore again the proceedings are invalid.

3. We may q