RAMANUJAM J.

The following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the accountable person for its opinion under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was not under an obligation to maintain his mother after he became sanyasi and, consequently, the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his mother on January 21, 1970, was not supported by consideration in money or money's worth and hence operated as a gift ?" *

The circumstances under which the above reference came to be made may briefly be stated.

His Holiness Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who was the head of Dharmapuram Adhinam, one of the famous mutts in South India, which has been established for the propagation of Saiva Sidhantha philosophy and the literature relating thereto, was a non-dwija (Sudra) before he became a sanyasi. While he was the head of the said adhinam, he executed on January 21, 1970, a deed of settlement in favour of his mother registered as document No. 631 of 1970, by and under which he settled upon her 13 acres and 63 cents of nanja lands situate in Mayuram Taluk in Tanjore District of the value of Rs. 54, 456 to be taken and enjoyed by her absolutely. Later he died on November 10, 1971. On his death, His Holiness Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal succeeded as the head of the Dharmapuram adhinam. He filed an account regarding the estate of the deceased, claiming that according to the custom, he had become entitled to the personal properties of the deceased. In the said account, he had included Rs. 54, 456 being the value of the lands settled by the deceased on his mother under the aforesaid deed, but, however, contended before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that no estate duty was leviable for the reason that there was no passing of the property on the death of the deceased and that the accountable person was only the holder of an office. The Assistant Controller rejected the said contention and included the sum of Rs. 54, 456 in the principal value of the estate which was determined at Rs. 7, 02, 268The accountable person preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller wherein it was not disputed that the personal properties of the deceased had passed on his death and that by reason of the accountable person having succeeded to the properties, the present head of the mutt was the accountable person. However, it was contended in the appeal that the properties settled by the deceased on his mother could not be deemed to have passed on his death under s. 9 of the Act and, consequently, the inclusion of their value, namely, Rs. 54, 456, in the assessment, was not proper. It was urged that the settlement had been made by the deceased in discharge of his obligation to maintain his mother, and, consequently, the same could not be considered as a gift falling under the purview of s. 9 of the Act. The stand taken by the Revenue before the Appellate Controller was that when the deceased became a sanyasi, the same operated as civil death, that as a result thereof, the relationship of son and mother between him and the settlee came to an end and the deceased thereafter had no obligation to maintain the settlee and consequently the settlement deed could be considered only as a gift and that the conveyance of the lands thereunder not having been made for any consideration in money or money's worth and such a conveyance having been made within two years prior to his death, the properties should be deemed to have passed under s. 9. The Appellate Controller, however, accepted the contention of the accountable person and held that since the deceased was a non-dwija, he continued to be under an obligation to maintain his mother notwithstanding his having become a sanyasi. In that view, he directed the deletion of Rs. 54,