Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-These two writ petitions pray for the issue of writs of prohibition or other appropriate writs prohibiting the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, from initiating proceedings against the respective petitioners for the assessment, levy and collection of the estate duty in respect of the properties attached to the Sthanam of the Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode or Calicut and of the Kuthiravattam Cottara, Coyalmannam Amson and Desom, Palghat, respectively.

We shall first deal in detail with the case of Zamorin of Calicut who is the petitioner in the W.P. No. 59 of 1955 and subsequently with the claims of the proprietor of the other estate.

Stated broadly, the main point raised for our consideration in these petitions is the constitutional validity of the Explanation to section 7 (4) of the Estate Duty Act (XXXIV of 1953). It will therefore be convenient to set out the main provisions of the enactment to understand and appreciate the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. The Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Central Act XXXIV of (1953) provides for the levy and collection of estate duty. Section 1 (3) of the Act provides for these provisions coming into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and the date appointed in that behalf was 15th October, 1953. Section 5 which is the charging section enacts:

“5. (1) In the case of every person dying after the commencement of this Act, there shall save as hereinafter expressly provided, be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as hereinafter provided of all property, settled or not settled, including agricultural land situate in the States specified in the First Schedule to this Act, which passes on the death of such person a duty called "estate duty" at the rates fixed in accordance with section 35.”

The duty is on all property which passes on the death of every person dying after the commencement of this Act, that is after 15th October, 1953. Property which passes on death, includes, not merely that which in the ordinary acceptance of the term devolves from one person to another but also includes certain other categories which are set out in sections 6 to 16. All these categories, are brought in under the head of “ property which is deemed to pass” under this enactment and of them the relevant ones in the present context are there included in section 6 and particularly section 7. Sections 6 and 7 enact:

“6. Property which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose of shall be deemed to pass on his death.

7. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the deceased’s death to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the censor of such interest, including in particular, a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshra, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law.

(2) If a member of a Hindu coparcenary governed by the Mitakshara school of law dies then the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply with respect to the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property only.

(a) if the deceased had completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death or

(b) where he had not completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death, if his father or other male ascendant in the male line was not a coparcener of the same family at the time of his death.

Explanation : Where the deceased was also a member of a sub-coparcenary (within the coparcenary) possessing separate property of its own, the provision of this sub-section shall have effect separately in respect of the coparcenary and the sub-coparcenary.

(3) If a member of any tarwad or tavazhi governed by the Marumakkattayam rule of inheritance or a member of a kutumba or kavaru governed by the Aliyasantana rule of inheritance dies then the provisions of sub-section (1) s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document