Gordon-Smith J:

Various questions arose for determination under this Originating Summons, which was filed under r. 4 of Court Rules regulating the procedure in applications to the Court under s. 37 of the Estate Duty Enactment. (These rules are to be found in vol. I of Allen's Rules at p. 82, under the heading "Courts").

The main point at issue is the amount of estate duty payable in consequence of the death of one Chinnah Meyappa (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") whose personal vilasam was MRMM but who was a member of the Chettiar Firm of RMA TM carrying on business at Ipoh.

The founder of this firm was RMATM Ramasamy Chettiar who started the business a good many years ago and who died in 1916. Business was carried on at Ipoh under the vilasam of RMATM. At his death Ramasamy left three sons surviving, namely, Periya Meyappa, the deceased, and Supramaniam.

Periya Meyappa, whose personal vilasam was RMM, died in 1919, leaving a son Ramanathan. Supramaniam whose personal vilasam is RMSP is still alive in India and he also has a son (a minor) named Ramasamy, and the deceased whose personal vilasam was MRMM also left a son Meyappa, who is also a minor. It will be seen that each son of Ramasamy the founder, adopted the RM of the founder's vilasam adding thereto a personal letter, in the case of Periya Meyappa, an M, and in the case of Supramaniam SP, and the deceased, as his name was also Meyappa, both added and prefixed M to the RM of his father, probably to make a distinction between his vilasam and that of his elder brother Periya Meyappa. This extra M prefixed was probably part of the vilasam of his grandfather who was also a Meyappa.

I might here mention that the plaintiff who is also a Meyappa and son of a Meyappa, is quite distinct to and, I believe, is no relation of this family.

In 1931, apparently, disputes had arisen between the sons and according to the deposition of ATRMS. Supramaniam Chettiar, he and another Chettiar settled the matter by directing that the share capital that stood in the vilasam RMATM. should be divided and separately entered in the names of the three sons. Apparently this was done and there was a partition. Of course, at this time, Periya Meyappa was dead, but that does not affect the points raised.

The deceased died intestate at Karaikudi, India, on 6 January 1936.

According to the Estate Duty Affidavit by the plaintiff dated 20 August 1936, he put the value of the deceased's interests in the firm RMATM at $60,908.73'aa and on which sum he alleged estate duty was payable.

After enquiry and considerable correspondence, the Collector of Estate Duty by notice dated 19 June 1937, assessed the value of the estate of deceased at $146,186.43'bd on which duty of $8,771.19 was payable.

Being aggrieved thereat, and being an aggrieved accountable person within the meaning of s. 37 (i) of the Estate Duty Enactment, the plaintiff accordingly gave the Collector notice, together with a statement in writing of the grounds of such application, of his intention to apply to the Supreme Court, in accordance with the aforesaid Rules of Court.

In accordance with r. 3, the Collector by letter dated 28 July 1937, notified the plaintiff's solicitors that he maintained his decision.

The Originating Summons was filed on 14 October, 1937. Strictly speaking this was out of date, as under r. 4, such Originating Summons should have been issued within one month of the Collector's rejection of the application to him.

At the commencement of the hearing, the construction to be placed on r. 5, was argued and for convenience of reference, I set this out verbatim -

5 Subject to the provisions of these rules the applicant shall not in his application state or at the hearing be allowed to rely upon any grounds of application not specifically set forth in the statement of the grounds of his application".

It is obvious that the draughtsman of these rules has taken as a precedent the English rules of the Sup