Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC263
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the property, details of which are given in. the plaint, are jointly possessed and owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff owning 3/4th share and defendant 1/4th share. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. But on appeal, the High Court of Punjab reversed the decree. Hence the appeal to this Court. The facts out of which this litigation arises are as follows:2. The suit properties admittedly belonged to one Kahan Singh who is the common ancestor of both the parties. The following pedigree shows the relationship:KAHAN SINGH|-----------------------------------| |Kirpal Singh Mohar Singh| -----------|Shiv Singh|------------------------- | |Wali Singh Pritam Singh(Plaintiff) |Sohan Singh (Deft.) The plaintiff, Wali Singh, son of Shiv Singh was admittedly adopted by Kirpal Singh. The-dates of birth and adoption of Wali Singh were both matters in dispute in the suit. But it was found by the trial Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC266
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of Mr. Justice K. C. Chunder of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1952 setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/639 of 1951.2. The Appellant was the Agent of the Calcutta branch of the Loyal Bank Ltd. from September 1938 to January 1948. The complainant, one Kshitish Chandra Mukherji opened an account with the said bank in about 1946 and he effected certain transactions in shares and securities through Messrs. J. M. Dutta, stock brokers at Calcutta. These shares and securities were purchased and sold by him on personal instructions given by him to the Appellant in that behalf and the purchase and the sale price of the shares used to be debited or credited as the case may be to his said account.Towards April 1946 the complainant had with him 200 Burmah Corporation shares and 200 B. B. Petrol shares and it was his case that he le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC516; [1953]24ITR488(SC); [1954]1SCR268
Das, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order pronounced on the 20th June, 1951, by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act whereby the High Court answered in the affirmative the following question :- 'Whether on the facts and circumstance of this case there is a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, with effect from 14th of the April, 1943, when the business, which had previously been carried on in partnership between two Dayabhaga Hindu undivided families, was carried on by a partnership between the separated male members of the two families ?' 2. The controversy arose at the time of the assessment of the appellant firm to excess profits tax for three chargeable accounting periods, namely, 14th April, 1943, to 13th April, 1944, 14th April, 1944, to 13t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC491; 1954(2)BLJR191; (1953)IIMLJ803(SC); [1954]1SCR277
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are daughters of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant. Kanakasabapathi was a self-made man and built up a flourishing motor bus service and also acquired substantial properties, movable and immovable. He died on the 24th August, 1942, without any male issue and left him surviving a widow, Gomathi Ammal, and two daughters, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. His widow continued the motor service and managed the other properties with the help of the 2nd defendant as her manager and died on the 7th March, 1940. The 1st defendant and her husband were throughout living with her mother. On her mother's death they both got into possession of all the properties including the motor service. The plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit originally as one for administration but later amended it as one for partition and separate possession of he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC268; [1953]24ITR535(SC)
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1943-44. The firm was entitled to Rs. 2,20,702 as its commission, but it is common ground that the firm did not draw this amount. It is, however, not disputed that the amount was credited to the firm in the accounts. The Income-tax Officer treated the amount as income accrued and received by the firm and held it taxable. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was contended that this sum included Rs. 81,0223 which represented the commission accruing to the firm in the Indian States where the company had opened branches for selling yarn. it was urged that this amount was not assessable, as it had not been remitted to what was then called 'British India'. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that under the managing agency agreement, the commission due to the firm accrued or arose in British India as it was found that the income from these branches in Indian States had been included in the profit and loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC527; (1953)IIMLJ823(SC); [1954]1SCR258
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. These three appeals arise from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 2nd February, 1950, delivered on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal'), whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative, and as regards the second question, Satyanarayana Rao J. answered it in the affirmative, while Viswanatha Sastri J. answered it in the negative, as a result of which the judgment of Satyanarayana Rao J. ultimately prevailed. They relate to the assessment for 1942-1943 and are filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, while Appeal No. 132 of 1952 which relates to 1943-1944 is filed by the assessee, and is dealt with separately. The two questions which were referred in respect of the first group of appeals are as follows :- (1) Whether there is any material for the Tribunal's finding that the appellants (respondents in this case) were being assessed on cash basis in the prior years (2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC495; 1954(2)BLJR1; (1953)IIMLJ796(SC); [1954]1SCR243
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated December 13, 1949, affirming, with slight modification, those of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1945. 2. The suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal for specific allotment, on partition, of his one-third share in the properties described in the plaint, on the allegation that they were the joint properties of a family consisting of himself, his father the defendant No. 1, and his brother, the defendant No. 2, and that he was entitled in law to one-third share in the same. It appears that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, who are two brothers, are both sons of defendant No. 1 by his first wife who predeceased her husband. After the death of plaintiff's mother, the defendant No. 1 married again and his second wife is defendant No. 3 in the suit. The allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC514; (1954)56BOMLR783; (1953)IIMLJ819(SC); [1954]1SCR235
Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 19, 1949, affirming, in appeal, those of the Civil Judge, Hubli, passed in Special Suit No. 21 of 1924. 2. The fact of the case lie within a short compass and the whole controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, centers round the short point as to whether or not the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Both the courts below have decided this point against the plaintiff and he has come up on appeal before us. 3. To appreciate the contentions that have been canvassed before us, a brief resume of the material facts will be necessary. The plaintiff appellant in the spiritual head or Mathadhipati of a Lingayet Math known as Murusavirmath situated within Hubli Taluka in the district of Dharwar. On November 13, 1887, Gurusidhwaswami, who was the then head of this religious institution, granted a permanent lease of a tract of land belonging to the Match a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC269
Bose, J.1. This is a suit brought by a son to set aside an alienation made by his father more than thirty-nine years before the suit. The alienation was on 5-9-1907 and the suit was filed on 26-11-1946.2. The alienor is Harnama. He died leaving two sons, Kura and Sawan. Kura is the plaintiff. Sawan was joined as a pro-forma defendant but was transposed as a plaintiff in the first appellate court and was given a decree there along with his brother Kura. This decree was set aside by the Union High Court at Patiala. The plaintiffs appeal.3. Before we go further we may say at once that it was conceded that Sawan who was transposed as a plaintiff can in no event be given a decree. Any rights he had in this property are long time barred and they cannot revive simply because his brother, who was under a personal disability, was enabled to sue after the normal period of limitation had expired. The plaintiff Kura was on military service and as such obtained an extended period of limitation. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]24ITR525(SC)
GHULAM HASAN, J.-These three appeals arise from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 2nd February, 1950, delivered on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative, and as regards the second question Satyanarayana Rao, J., answered it in the affirmative, while Viswanatha Sastri, J., answered it in the negative, as a result of which the judgment of Satyanarayana Rao, J., ultimately prevailed. they relate to the assessment for 1942-43 and are filed by the Commissioner if Income-tax, while Appeal No. 132 of 1952 which relates to 1943-44 is filed by the assessee, and is dealt with separately.The two questions which were referred in respect of the first group of appeals are as follows :-' (1) Whether there is any material for the Tribunals finding that the appellants (respondents in this case) were being assessed on cash basis in the prior yea...
Tag this Judgment!