# M. K. BALAKRISHNAN MENON v. ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY-cum-1.T.O • . ERNAKULAM

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 961
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-10-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1137 of 1969
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-k-balakrishnan-menon-v-asstt-controller-of-estate-duty-cum-1-t-o-ernakulam-5493
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Marunzkkattayam Law-Whether the entire estate passed in the death
of the sthanaihdhar to his successors and if the entire property is liable
to Estate duty under Estate Duty Act, 1953-Interprel!ation of s. 7(3) of
the Succession Act. 1956.
One T who was the third Stanamdhar of a family, died in 1960. The
sthanam owned several properties in his personal capacity.
After his
death a suit for th; partition of the Sthanam was fi.I{!d by various members
of the Ta.rwad.
The appellant was appointed a receiver of fhe properties
covered by the third Sthanam of which the sthanamdar was the deceased
T.
The receiver was in these circumstances, treated as an accountable
person in respect of the sthanam properties.
Pursuant to a notice issued
under s. 55 of the fatale Duty Act, 1953, by the Assistant Controller of
Estate Duty, the appellant filed the neciossary accounts.
But he raised
the contention in the assessm::nt proceedings that according to s. 7 ( 3) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the deceased T was r:ntitled only to
!/I !4th share in the sthanam properties and therefore only that share
could be taken into account in determining the principal valu~ of the
Estate liable to duty.
The respondent, howeve·r, held that the entire estate passed on th~
death of the deceased and was liable to duty,
The appiollant filed a petition under Art. 226 challenging the assessment order.
A learned Single
Judge allowed the petition and quashed the assessment order.
The respondent filed an appeal before a divisional bench which was heard by a
full bench and negatived the contention of the appellant and held that on
the dreath cf the Sthanamdar the whole of the Sthanam property passed
and was deemed to pass and the Estate duty was payable on the whole
of the propc:rty.
Dismi~sing the appeal,
HELD; (i) In Marumakkattayam branch of the Hindu law, the word
'Jvfarrumakkattayam· i:; inheritance through nephews and ni•;ces.
The
essential difference bct\vccn Marun1akkattayam and the other schools of
Hindu law. is that the former is founded on the r..1a1riarchate whi\~ the
latter i'-l founded _upon the agnatic family.
In the Mitakshara inint family,
the members claim their descent from a common ancestor but in Marumakkat1ay<im family which is known as the tarwad, th~ desc1~nt is from
a commo;i ancestress.
Tarwad is the name given to a joint family consisting of males and females 'vho have all descended in the family line
from a common ancestress. [964 E]
(ii) Thre legal fiction created by the word,, "as if the Sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the
sthanamdar", in s. 7_(3) of the Succession Act, is meant for the puroose
of wadually ltqmdatmg the sthanams and distributing the sthanam prop1~;ttes .among~t t~e . members of. ~he sthanees' tarwad and his oersonal
hen"S without mfrmgmg the provIS1ons of the Constitution.
Neither the
members of the Tarwad nor the personal heirs of the sthanee had any
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 972] I S.C.R.
interest in the sthanam properties. The first part of s. 7 ( 3) el early provides that the property which passes on the death of the sthanamdar is
the whole of the sthanam property held by him. The second part only
deals with distribution of that property. The Sthanam property held by
the sthanamdar has to pass from th1:! sthanamdar to the members of the
family to which he belonged and his heirs.
Legal fiction in the words
wh:ch have been set out do not cut down the sthanam propefty that
passes on the death of sthanarndar to a per capita share, the fiction having
been introduced only for determining the respective shares .for the purpose
of distribution to
th~ members of the family and the heirs of the sthanamdar. [96& G]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
961
M. K. BALAKRISHNAN MENON
v.
ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY-cum-1.T.O •
. ERNAKULAM
October 5, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Marunzkkattayam Law-Whether the entire estate passed in the death
of the sthanaihdhar to his successors and if the entire property is liable
to Estate duty under Estate Duty Act, 1953-Interprel!ation of s. 7(3) of
the Succession Act. 1956.
One T who was the third Stanamdhar of a family, died in 1960. The
sthanam owned several properties in his personal capacity.
After his
death a suit for th; partition of the Sthanam was fi.I{!d by various members
of the Ta.rwad.
The appellant was appointed a receiver of fhe properties
covered by the third Sthanam of which the sthanamdar was the deceased
T.
The receiver was in these circumstances, treated as an accountable
person in respect of the sthanam properties.
Pursuant to a notice issued
under s. 55 of the fatale Duty Act, 1953, by the Assistant Controller of
Estate Duty, the appellant filed the neciossary accounts.
But he raised
the contention in the assessm::nt proceedings that according to s. 7 ( 3) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the deceased T was r:ntitled only to
!/I !4th share in the sthanam properties and therefore only that share
could be taken into account in determining the principal valu~ of the
Estate liable to duty.
The respondent, howeve·r, held that the entire estate passed on th~
death of the deceased and was liable to duty,
The appiollant filed a petition under Art. 226 challenging the assessment order.
A learned Single
Judge allowed the petition and quashed the assessment order.
The respondent filed an appeal before a divisional bench which was heard by a
full bench and negatived the contention of the appellant and held that on
the dreath cf the Sthanamdar the whole of the Sthanam property passed
and was deemed to pass and the Estate duty was payable on the whole
of the propc:rty.
Dismi~sing the appeal,
HELD; (i) In Marumakkattayam branch of the Hindu law, the word
'Jvfarrumakkattayam· i:; inheritance through nephews and ni•;ces.
The
essential difference bct\vccn Marun1akkattayam and the other schools of
Hindu law. is that the former is founded on the r..1a1riarchate whi\~ the
latter i'-l founded _upon the agnatic family.
In the Mitakshara inint family,
the members claim their descent from a common ancestor but in Marumakkat1ay<im family which is known as the tarwad, th~ desc1~nt is from
a commo;i ancestress.
Tarwad is the name given to a joint family consisting of males and females 'vho have all descended in the family line
from a common ancestress. [964 E]
(ii) Thre legal fiction created by the word,, "as if the Sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the
sthanamdar", in s. 7_(3) of the Succession Act, is meant for the puroose
of wadually ltqmdatmg the sthanams and distributing the sthanam prop1~;ttes .among~t t~e . members of. ~he sthanees' tarwad and his oersonal
hen"S without mfrmgmg the provIS1ons of the Constitution.
Neither the
members of the Tarwad nor the personal heirs of the sthanee had any
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 972] I S.C.R.
interest in the sthanam properties. The first part of s. 7 ( 3) el early provides that the property which passes on the death of the sthanamdar is
the whole of the sthanam property held by him. The second part only
deals with distribution of that property. The Sthanam property held by
the sthanamdar has to pass from th1:! sthanamdar to the members of the
family to which he belonged and his heirs.
Legal fiction in the words
wh:ch have been set out do not cut down the sthanam propefty that
passes on the death of sthanarndar to a per capita share, the fiction having
been introduced only for determining the respective shares .for the purpose
of distribution to
th~ members of the family and the heirs of the sthanamdar. [96& G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1137
of 1969 and 1421of1971.
Appeals by certificate/special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 29, 1966 of the Kerala High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 119 of 1965.
M. C. Chagla and M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellant (in both
the appeals).
A
B
c
S. T. Desai, M. C. Bhandare and B. D. Sharma, for the responD
dent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment
of the Kerala High Court in which a question of substantial importance arises relating to the extent of the property that attracts
Estates Duty on the death of a Sthar.·~e or Sthanamdar in a Hindu
family governed by the MarumakkaHayam law.
It may be mentioned that Civil Appeal No.
1137 /69 was
brought to this Court by certificate against the same judgment but
the certificate is defective for want of reasons and has therefore to
be revoked.
One K. I( Thampan who was the third Sthanomdar of Kuthiravattathu Family died on May 17, 1960.
The Sthanam owned
several properties such as forest lands, agricultural lands, buildings etc.
The deceased also own.~d several properties in his personal capacity.
Aft.~r his death a suit for the oartition of the
Sthanam was filed in a civil court by the various ;;embers of the
Tarwad.
The appellant before us was appointed a Receiver of
the properties covered bv the third Sthanam on which the Sthanamdar was the deceased K. K.
Thampan.
The Receiver was, in
these circumstances, treated as an accountable person in re-pect of
th>~ Sthanam properties.
Pursuant 1to a notice issued under s. 55
of th~ Estate Duty Act 1953, hereinafter called the 'Act",, by the
Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (respondent herein) the appellant file the necessary accounts. But he raised a contention iri
E
F
G
H
BALAKRISHNAN v. CONTR. ESTATE DUTY (Grover, !.)
963A
th" assessment proceedings that according to s. 7 ( 3) of tlie Hindu
Succession Act 1956, hereiM~ter caJ!ed the "Succ.ession Act'',
the deo~ased Thampan was entitled only to l/114th share in the
properties in the Sthanam and therefo1e that share could be taken
into account in determining ithe principal value of the ~state liable
to duty.
The respondent, however, held 1that the entire estate
B passed on the death of the deceased and was liable to duty. The
appellan't filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the assessment order.
A learned single judge of the High
Court allowed the petition and quashed the assessment order. The
l'~spondeni filed an appeal before a division bench of the High
c
Court which was heard by a full bench together with other appeals
involving a _similar point.
Before 1the High Court rt was not disputed by the appellant that if the Act stood alone the entire properties of the Sthanam were liable to estate duty under the Act.
The sole contention was thats. 7 (3) of the Succession Act made a
difference inasmuch as by virtw~ of the partition postulated under
that provision immediivtely before the death of the Sthanamdar
D
the property that passed or should be deemed to pass on the death·
of the Sthanamdar was only his per capita share of the Sthanam
property and not the whole property of
1th1~ Sthanam.
The full
bench negatived the contention of the appellant and held that on
the death of the Sthanamdar the whole of the Sthanam pro;ierty
passed and was deemed to pass and the Estate duty was payable
E
F
G
II
on the whole of the property.
The Act was enacted to provide for the levy and cdlection of
es ta~~ duty.
Section 5 ( 1) provides for levy of estate duty and
says, inter a/ia, that in the case of every person dying after the
commencement of the Act there shall, save as expressly provided.
be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as provided
of all property settled or not settled which pass-~s on the death of
such person a duty called "estate duty" at 1the rate fixed in accordance with s. 35. Section 7, to the extent it is material, i1 repro
duced below :-
"S. 7. Interests ceasing on death.-( I) Subjects 10
the provisions of this section,
property in which the
deo~ased or any other person had an interest ceasing on
ithe death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the
de.ceased is d·~ath the extent to which a benefit accrues or
anses by the cesser o.f such interest, including, in particular, ~ coparce~ary mterest in the joint family property
of a Hmdu family governed by the Mitakshara Marumakkattayam or Aliyas-~nthana law.
'
(2) .... · ....... .
(3) .. ". " ... "
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972 J l 5.C.R.
( 4) The provisions of sub-section (I) shall not apply
lo the property in which the deceased or any o,her
person had an interest only as
holder of an
office or
recipient of the benefits of a charity, or as a corporation
sole.
Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the holder of a Sthanam is neither the
hold·~r of an office nor a corporation sole within the
meaning of this sub-section''.
In order to de"termine as to what propercy shall be deemed to pass
A
B
on the death of Sthanamdar it is n.~cessary to decide the nature C
of 1the Sthanam property and the interest of tlre Sthanamdar in
that propePty.
For this purpose we have to turn to the Marumakkattayam branch of Hindu law and then consickr what is the
exact ambit and scope of the changes which have been made under
that law so far as succession is
concerned in the case of
Sthanamdar by the Succession Act to the eX!lent it is material in
the p1esent case.
As pointed out in Mayne's Hindu Law and D
Usage, 1950 Edn. Marumakkattayam law is a body of customs
and usages which have receiV>Jd judicial recognition.
It prevails
among a consid.~rable section of the people inhabiting the west
coast of south India. The literal meaning of the word "Marumakkattayam" is inheritence through nephews and nieces.
The
essential difference between Marumakkattayam and
th~ other
schools of Hindu Law is •that the former is founded on the
matria1chate while the latter is founded upon the agnatic family.
In the Mitakshara joint family th.~ members claim their descent
from a common ancestor but in a Marumakkattayam family which
is known as the •tarwad the descent is from a common ancestress. Tarwad is the name given to a joint family consisting
of F
males and females who have all descended in the family line from
a common ancestress.
Many compares a tarwad to
a family
corporation.
Every member of a tarwad has equal rights in the
property by reason of his or her birth in the tarwad. H was laid
down in a course of judicial decisions in the nineteenth century
that one or more members of a tarwad cannot claim partition and
separate possession of his or their share of the «arwad property
without •the consent or concurrence of all the members of the
tarwad. The Madras legislature enact.~d certain statutes giving a
right of partition to the membef5 of a tarwad to enforce parti!ion
of a •tarwad property. The shares on partition were to be on per
capita basis.
Now Sthanam and Sthanamdar emerged in this manner. Some
'Of the aristocratic Hindu families in the west coast had attached to
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BALAKR!SHNAN v. CONTR. ESTATE DUTY (Grover, J.)
965
their familie> an office called Sthanam meaning literally "status,.
rank or digni'tV". The holder of Sthanam was called a Sthance or
Slhanamdar. ·The rulers grnnted S.hanams to their chieftains
and important public officers which were usually accompanied by
a grant of land for th.e maintenance of the dignity of the officer.
In addition to the families of princes and chieftains 'ihere were other
families which possessed Sthanams wi•thout any particular dignity
attached to them.
The incidents of the ins<itu<tion were that the
senior most member of family became the Sthanamadar who was
usually the male member; but •there were instacces where the
senior most female member became 'ihe
S!hanamdar.
Separate
prooerties belonged to each Sthanam and they vested in the holder
of the office for the time being and descended to the successors in
office. One important feature was that Sthanamdar ceased •to have
any interest in •the property of hi& tarwad and tb~ members of his
tarwad had in their tmn only reversionary rights to the Srhanam
properties.
The Sthanamdar had a limited est<rte in the sense
!hat he could encumber or alienate the Sthanam properties only
for a l.egal necessity like any limited owner but otherwise he was
absolutely entitled to •the income accruing during his tenure of
office.
His position was analogous to that of a holder of an impartible esfate,
His successor had no interest in it and the right of
the successor was nothing more <than a spes successions. There is
a good deal of discussion on these matters in a judgment of this
Court in Kava/appara Kottarahi/ Kochuni & Others v. The State
of Madras & Ors. (1) which is on the same lines as above. In that
case the constitutionality of the provisions of the Madras Marumakkattayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955 passed by the
Madras Legislature soon after a decision of the Privy Council
declaring that the properties in possession of the Sthanamdar were
sthanam properties in which the members of •the tarwad had no
intemst had been challenged.
By s. 2 of that Act it had been
provided that any sthanam in respect of which there was or had
been, at any time, an iniermingling of the properties of the
sthanam and ~.he properties of the tarwad or the· members of the
tarwad had been receiving maintenance from the P'Op·~rtics of lhe
sthanam or there had been a vacancy caused by there being no
male member of the tarwad eligible to succeed to the sthanamdar,
shall 1:-e deemed to be a Marumakkattayam tarwad and the propert!es appert~ining to such sthanam shall be deemed to be properties belo~gmg 1o th: tarwa~ .. It was held in the majority judgment that the aforesaid prov1st0ns of the Madras Act were
a
device to deorive the sthanam of its properties and v.est them in
the tarwad and as such they were directlv hit bv Art 19 ( 1 )(f) and
could not be saved by Art. 19 ( 5) of the Constitution.
(I) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887.
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 1 S.C.R.
Now all the sthanams would gradually get completely liqui-
·dated by the provisions of the Succession Aot.
Section 7 of the
Succession Act deals with devolution of interest in the property
of a tarwad etc. Sub-sections ( 1) and ( 3) of that section which are
material for our purposes may be reproduced :
"7 ( 1) When a Hindu to whom 1he marumakkattayam or nambudri law would have applied if this Act
had not been passed dies after the commencement of
this Act, having at the time of his or her death an interest in the property of a tarwad, tavazhi or illom, as the
case may be, his or her inP2rest in the property shall
devohre by testamentary or intestate succession, as the
case may be, under this Act ancf not according to 1he
marumakkattayam or nambudri Jaw.
Explanation ............. .
( 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection ( 1), when a sthanamdar dies after the commencemen't of this Aot, the sthanam property held by
him shall devolve upon the m2mbers of the family to
which th.~ sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the
sthana_mdar as if the sthanam property had been divided
per capita immediately before the death of the sthanamdar among himself and all the members of his family
then living, and the shares falling to the memb~rs of his
family and the heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by
them as their separate property. '
Exp/anation.-For <the purposes of this sub-section,
the family of a sthanamdar shall include ev.~ry branch of
that family, whether divided or undivided, the male
members of which would have been enti'tled by any custom or usage to succeed to the position of sthanamdar if
this Act had not been passed".
A
B
c
D
E
F
The resuH of the enactment of s. 7 ( 3) of the Succession Act is
that
1th.~ sthanams continued till the death of the sthanamdar and
G
. thereafter the sthanam property d•2volved upon the members of
the family to which ·the sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the
sthanamdar (his personal heirs). The division was to be per
capita on the basis of a national partition having taken place immediately before the death of the sthanamdar.
The points for consideration are :
H
1. Whether th~ provisions of the Succession Act can affect and
;are relevant for the levy of estate duty under the Act ?
A
B
(
c
D
E
F
G
H
BALAY.RISHNAN v. CONTR. ESTATE DUTY (Grover,!.)
967
( 2) What is the true effect of the provisions of s. 7 ( 3) of •the
Succession Act ?
( 3) Whether the estate duty would be leviabLe on the entire
property which belonged to th·e sthanamdar or it can be levied
only on 11ll4•th share in the sthanam properties to which a10ne
the deceased Thampan would haw been entiiled if a partition had
taken place under s. 7 ( 3) of the Succession Act immediately before his death ?
As regards the first point it has already been mentioned that
before the High Court there was no dispute that if th~ court had
to look 'to the provisions of the Act alone the entire property of the
sthanam was liable to estaie duty. On behalf of the
appellant
it has been contended before us that in order to determine the mterest in property which ceases on the death of the deceased and
which is deemed to pass on his death and the b~nefit which accrues
or arises by the cesser of such interest within the meaning of s.
7 ( 1) of the Act it is essential to turn 'to the law by which the
deceased is govemzd for the purpose of ascer•taining the the extent
of his interest in the property.
The provisions of s. 7 of the
succession Act have to be mad together with s. 7 of <the Act for
determining the interest which the deeo..ased had in the sthanam
property on which the estate duty would be kwiable. This position
is not controvei'ted by the counsel for the respondent. The controversy thus narrows down to the true scope and ambit of the
provisions of s. 7 ( 3) of the Succession Act.
On behalf of the
appellant it has been maintained that on a proper construction of
the language employed in s. 7 ( 3) it should be held that before
the d•zath of the sthanamdar which ·:ook place in accordance with
what is provided in sub-s. ( 3) of the sthanam property and 1that
on his death all that devolved on his heirs was the share which
the sthanamdar would have got in that paP:ition.
It is pointed
out that th~ legal fiction of partition or division is created by subs. ( 3) for the definite purpose of alloting a share in the sthanam
properties to the personal heirs of th·~ sthanamdar wh'ch could not
be done under the general Marumakkattayam law. · The partition
thus had •to be real and effective and the sthanamdar should be
considered to hav.~ died as a divided member.
In other words
the true position, according to the leamzd counsel for <the appellant, is that th.e division per capita under s. 7 ( 3) took place immediately before the death of the s•thanamdar with the r.~sult that
the interest which he had in the sthanam property was only to the
extent of hi~ share which alon•z devolved upon his heirs. On the
other hand the position taken up on behalf of •the resoondent
before the .High Court, which was accepted and which has. been
reiterated before us. is that s. 7 (3) merely creates a legal fiction
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] I S.C.R.
for the purpose of distribution of the properties which is to 'take
place after the death of s•thanamdar and that bjng the sole purpo&'~ for whic(l the legal fiction was introduced it could not be
extended fu: ther so a, to include an accual division or partition
having been effected in the lifetime of the sthanamdar with the
resui't that he became a divided m~mber for all purposes.
We have had occasion to notice in some detail the incic!•"nts
of the ins•titution of sthanam and sthanamdar as also the natmc
of the sthanam property kid by the sthanamdar. H has not been
disputed before us on behalf of the appdlant that during his
lifetime the sthanam property !;donged to ·the sthanamdar.
Certain restrictions were placed on his powers of alienation but that
did not detract from the natu1e of the es•late held by him.
The
cesser of his interest in the sthanam property would be of the whole
of that property and the benefrt that would accm~ or arise ~
the cesser of such interest would also be of the entire s:hanam
property.
Position would be diffe1 ent only if s. 7 ( 3) of
the
Succession Act is so construed as to lead to the result that a partition or division of the sthanam property shall be deemed to have
taken place during his lifetime.
Jn our judgment such an interprntation of s. 7 (3) of the Succession Act is likely to involve the
constitutionality of that provision in view of the decision of this
Court in K. K. Kochuni's( 1 ) case.
Jn other words by bringing
about a statutory division or parlition of the sthanam property by
which the sthanamdar will be deprived of that property except to
th.e extent of a per capita share therein will be infringement of
A1 t. 19(1 )( f) of the Constitution. The court ought not to interplet statutory provisions unless compelled by their
language in
such a manner as would involve its constitutionalrty because tho
legislature is presumed to enact a law which does not contraven.~
A
B
c
D
E
or violate 'the constitutional provisions.
The other construction
F
which has been accepted by the High Couf't appears to be more in
consonance with the background in which s. 7 ( 3) of the Succession Act has been enacted.
Tb;: legal fiction also which has been
inti oduced should only be limited to that purpose and •there can
be no justification for ex•tending it.
The legal fiction created by
the words "as if the sthanam property had been divided per capita
immediately before the c!•;:ath of 'the sthanamdar" appears to be
G
meant solely for the purpose of gradually liquidatin>; the sthanams
and distributing the sthanam properties amonQst 1he members of
the sihanee's tarwad and his personal heirs wi1lwut infr'nging the
provisions of the Constitution.
It may be poin'ed oul •hai neither
the members of the tarwad nor the personal heirs of the stlianec
had any int•;:rest in the sthanam properties.
The first part of
s. 7 !3) clearlv nrovicles that the prop.~rty which paS>cs on the
(I) [t960] 3 S.C.R. 887.
H
A
B
c
D
BALAKRISHNAN v. CONTR. ESTATE DUTY (Grover, J.)
969
death of the sthanamdar is the whole of the sthanam property held
by him.
The second part only deals with distribution of that
property.
We have no doubt that the High Court was right in
sayin)! tha!t the word "devolve'" as used in the first part has the
meaning given to it by Leach M. R. in Perr v. Parr(') of passing
from a person dying to a person living.
Thus the sthanam property held by the sthanamdar has to pass from the sthanamdar to
the members of the family to which he belonged and his heirs.
Legal fiction in the words which have been set out do not cut
down the sthanam property that passes on the d.~ath of sthanamdar
to a per capita share, the fiction having been introduced only for
determining the respective shares for ,the purpose of distribution
to the members of th•i family and the heirs of sthanamdar.
For all the reasons given above we affirm the decision of the
High Court and dismiss this appeal (C.A. 1421/71) but in view
of the entire circumstances make no order as to costs. The other
appeal (C.A. 1137 of 1969) is dismissed owing to the certificate
being defective for want of reasons.
S.N.
Appeals dismissed
(I) 2 L.J. Ch. 167.
10-Lll9Sup.CI/72