Peria Karuppan Chettiar V. Commisioner Of Stamps

1936 Present : Moseley J. and Fernando A.J.

PERIA KARUPPAN CHETTIAR v. COMMISSIONER
OF STAMPS.

8-D. C. Colombo, 6,447.

Estate duty-Hindu joint family-Business carried by a member-District property-Separate acquisitions-Burden of proof-Liability to estate duty.

A member of a Hindu joint family may carry on business by himself in such a way as to make that business or the profits of it his own property as distinct from the property of the family. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property rests on the party asserting it.

In order to establish that the property is joint it must be proved that it was purchased with joint family funds or that it was produced out of the joint family property or by joint labour.

Money received from an ancestor by way of gift or loan is not ancestral property as the term is understood in Hindu law.

THIS was an appeal from the assessment of estate duty made by the Commissioner of Stamps on the estate of one M. R. P. L. P. R. Muttu Karuppan Chettiar. The deceased, who left an estate consisting of movable and immovable property in Ceylon, carried on business at Colombo and Kandy. It was claimed for the deceased that he was the member of a Hindu joint family and that with regard to his movable property, the Hindu law applied. The learned District Judge held that the deceased was the owner and proprietor of the business carried on in Colombo under the vilasam M. R. P. L. P. R. and a half share of the business carried on at Kandy under the vilasam of M. R. P. L. M. T. T.; that the immovable property in Ceylon passed to his heirs on his death in accordance with the law of Ceylon and that the estate was liable to pay duty on its full value. With regard to movable property also he held that the estate duty was payable in respect of the entire interest which stood in the name of the deceased at the time of his death.

N. Nadarajah (with him E. B. Wikramanayake), for administrator, appellant.-Money that found nucleus of the capital of the firm in question was ancestral property. Income was assessed on that basis in India for the purpose of Income Tax. Sea documents A 5 to A 12. Returns were made on the basis that this firm was the property of a joint Hindu family. This system has been recognized in Ceylon. (Adaicappa Chetty v. Cook & Sons [1 31 N. L. R. 385 at 405. ]; also Annamalai Chetty v. Thornhill [2 29 N. L. R. 225 at 229.].)

[Basnayake C.C. objects that the Court cannot consider Hindu law without evidence of that law being properly placed before the Court.]

Section 38 and 45 of the Evidence Ordinance deal with questions of foreign law. Any report purporting to be a ruling of a Court of such country would be relevant.

[Basnayake C.C.-The report must be duly produced.

merely says it is relevant. It must also be proved. The only method of proving it must be by production. Foreign law is not a question of law. It is a question of fact (Rex v. Bdba [1 6 N. L. R. 35]).]

No production is necessary. (10 Calcutta 140; 38 Madras 466.) Who can produce such a document except a witness ? Crown Counsel himself cited Mulla in the lower Court. Our law is different from the English law in this respect.

[MOSELEY J.-Is not the objection purely technical ?]

Basnayake C.C.-No. It is a question of evidence. Foreign law is a question of fact. The trial Judge should consider it and give his opinion.

The characteristics of the joint-family system are laid down in 11 Moore's Indian Appeals 75 at 89. No member can say that he has a certain definite share except where the property is partitioned. There is community of interest and unity of possession. (40 Calcutta 784.) Where a member of such a family dies he does not die possessed of any property. The remaining members take by survivorship and not by succession. (9 Moore's Indian Appeals 539 at 611.) The deceased was a member of a joint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document