Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-28-1964
Reported in : AIR1965AP218; [1965]56ITR8(AP)
ORDER(1) The petitioner is an 'Accountable person' within the meaning of Sec. 53 of the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The property in respect of which he has to pay estate duty belonged to his wife who died on 30-9-1955. She was one of the several heirs of late Nawab Salar Jung. The petitioner as the person to whom the property passed on the death of his wife, filed an account on 10-2-1961 declaring Rs. 1,300/- as the value of the property . But subsequently it was found that his deceased wife had a 6 1/2 / 192 share in the Salar Jung Estate. This share was valued by the Assistant Controller ( Respondent ) at Rs. 4,84,713/-. To this was added the sum of Rs. 1,300/- which represented the value of the personal belongings of the petitioner's deceased wife. The respondent assessed the duty on the estate at Rs. 49,152/-. Of this, Rs. 23,109/- represented the duty on immovable property . A notice of demand under Sec. 73(1) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-14-1964
Reported in : AIR1966AP107
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the Judgment of Kumarayya J. in A. S. 39 of 1959, by which the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit for partition of items 1 to 8 of plaint A schedule lands in modification of the lower court's decree and confirmed the decree of the lower court for a partition of the entire plaint B schedule properties (house properties) and Items 1 to 7 of plaint C schedule properties (moveables).2. Defendants 1 to 3 are the present appellants, defendants 2 and 3 being the sons of the 1st defendant. The suit was brought by the widow of the 1st defendant's brother, Kanteti Satyanarayana, who died on 14-12-1947 leaving him surviving his widow the plaintiff.3. The main defences to the suit were: firstly that the plaintiff had given up her claim to a share in the family properties and elected to receive only maintenance under a family settle, ment dated 4-11-1948 and as such it is not now open to her lo claim a share: and secondly th...
Tag this Judgment!