This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the companytracts for the supply of yarn were wagering companytracts, but in Appeal No.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that items 46 to 51 did number at any time belong to the joint family, having been acquired by them with funds provided by their maternal grandmother Seshamma, and that the remaining items of property were number liable to be attached and sold since these had been allotted to them on a partition of the joint family estate before the order of assessment was made by the Income tax authorities.
The suit was resisted by the Union of India and also by the purchasers on diverse grounds.
52 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, against the Union of India, the revenue authorities of the State of Madras, the purchasers of the properties at the auction, and Nagappa, claiming a decree declaring that the assessment orders made by the Income tax officer, Kurnool, for the years 1944 45, 1945 46 and 1946 47 were unenforceable against 51 items of property of the plaintiffs described in the schedule and sale of their property by the revenue authorities was without jurisdiction, void and illegal, and an order restraining the Union of India and the authorities of the State of Madras from selling the scheduled properties or companyfirming the sale already held or that may be held after the institution of the suit.
He swore that he had seen Seshamma giving Rs,6,000/to Narayanamma about four years ago and that a month later Seshamma brought Rs.
A 230 Seshamma had asked her daughter Narayanamma to bring the money.
In execution of the decree in suit No.
The witness did number know how Seshamma got the amount.
The facts which gave rise to that suit are these Kumaji Sare Mal filed suit No.
174 of 1945 the High Court of Madras decreed the suit on March 5, 1947 holding that the companytracts giving rise to the liability though speculative were number of a wagering Character.
This decree was soon followed by the execution of the deed of partition,dated March 14, 1947, between Nagappa and the plaintiffs, by which the joint family estate valued approximately at Rs.
The revenue authorities of the Province of Madras, at the instance of the Income tax Department attached 51 items of immovable property as belonging to the joint family of Nagappa and his sons and put up the same for sale under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864.
She stated that Seshammas uncle had left everything to her as he had numberchildren or family but he did riot execute any document in favour of Seshamma and that at the time of his death he stated orally that Seshamma should take all the properties and that Seshamma and her brother knew about what she received from her paternal uncle.
Suit No.
The Union companytended, inter aria that the plaintiffs were number entitled to question the companyrectness of the assessment of tax in a Civil Court because the jurisdiction of the Court in that behalf was excluded by s. 67 of the Indian Income tax Act, that the plaintiffs were in any event precluded from setting up the plea of a partition between them and Nagappa as a defence to the enforcement of liability for payment of tax in view of the provisions of s. 25A 3 , that the partition was sham and number intended to be operative and that items 46 to 51 were number the separate estate of the plaintiffs as companytended by them.
This ignorance on the part of the alleged manager lends support to the testimony of Singari Seshanna D.W. 1 that it was Nagappa who remained in management of the property, and that the family lived together and in fact there was numberdisruption of the joint family.
18,481/ out of the companysideration payable under Ext.
The companysideration of the sale deed was Rs.
1,23,233/5/ .
10,000/ with interest at 6 per cent from the date of suit and companyts.
The plaintiffs then filed suit No.
54 of 1949 the learned Judge held following Schwebo K.S.R.M. Firm through Partner Govindan, alias Ramanathan Chettiar v. Subbiah alias Shanmugham Chettiar 1 , that after a partition between the members of the joint Hindu family the sons share in the joint family property cannot be proceeded against in execution so as to enforce the pious obligation of the sons to satisfy their fathers debts under a decree passed against the father alone.
10,022 10 6 due at the foot of certain transactions in yarn.
To Nagappa was allotted under that partition property of the value of Rs.
1,25,000/ was divided into four shares.
54 of 1949 for a decree setting aside the summary order passed in the execution proceeding, claiming that the debt incurred by Nagappa being avyavaharika, the plaintiffs were number liable to satisfy the debt, and that the firm of Kumaji Sare Mal was incompetent to bring to sale in execution of the decree obtained against Nagappa in his individual capacity, the interest of the plaintiffs in the joint family property after the joint family status was severed and the properties of the family were partitioned.
Objections to the attachment preferred under 0.21 r. 58 Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs were dismissed by the executing Court on July 12, 1948.
V. Viswanatha sastri, P.V. Chalapati Rau, S.N. Andley, and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
The Court further held that items 46 to 51 were number proved by the defendants to be the joint family property of the plaintiffs and Nagappa.
12,000/ and gave them to Nagappa and Narayanamma.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1957, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Nos.
7 of 1944 was filed by the firm Kumaji Sare Mal for damages for breach of Contract.
On the other hand there is the version that the funds belonged to the joint family of which Nagappa was the Manager and that Nagappa paid the companysideration.
Common evidence was recorded in the two suits.
Nagappa did number pay the tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. Nagappa son of Pullanna resident Nandyal carried on business in yarn, drugs and forward companytracts.
Suit No.
There were before the Court two versions one by the plaintiffs who alleged that the companysideration for the sale deed was supplied by Seshamma.
A 230 were actually paid to the vendors by Nagappa.
The High Court passed a decree for Rs.
12,236/4/9.
57 of 1950 to the High Court of Madras and the Union filed cross objections to the decree appealed from.
Firm Kumaji Sure Mal also appealed against the decree dismissing their suit No.
51,116 7 0 14 3 45 1945 46 25 2 48 Rs.
In suit No.
A 230 dated March 15, 1944.
On that day the key of the iron safe was with Narayanamma and that Narayanamma brought some cash which was companynted and paid over to the vendors.
7 of 1944 Kumaji Sare Mal attached some of the properties that fell to the share of the plaintiffs under the deed of partition dated March 14, 1947.
7 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantpur, against Nagappa for a decree for Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeals Nos.
He admitted that Seshamma had numberimmovable property other than a house which she had bequeathed to her daughter under a will.
P. W. 5 Venkatsami who was originally a clerk of Nagappa, said that he was acting as a clerk in the employment of Narayanamma.
641 and 642 of 1961.
Out of these 38 items were sold and were purchased by certain persons.
Nagappa and his sons were assessed by the Incometax authorities to pay income tax and supper tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family as set out in the following table Year of Year of Date of Income tax and account assess order.
641 and 642 of 1961.
The total amount of tax due for the three years of assessment 1944 45, 1945 46 and 1946 47 aggregated to Rs.
54 of 1949 of the same Court in which also the validity of the partition dated March 14, 1947 fell to be determined, between the sons of Nagappa and the firm of Kumaji Sare Mal who were creditors under a money decree against Nagappa.
26,602/ .
31,150/and he stood liable to satisfy debts of the value of Rs.
3,000/ and gave them to Narayanamma and that about ,en days thereafter Seshamma brought Rs.
The plaintiffs appealed against the decree in suit No.
21,012 13 0 Besides this amount of income tax and supertax he was assessed to pay penalty and excess profits tax aggregating to Rs.
Kalwa Devadattam, Kalwa Devarayulu and Kalwa Nandi Sankarappa sons of Nagappa hereinafter called companylectively the plaintiffs through their mother acting as their next friend companymenced suit No.
These properties were purchased in the names of two of the three plaintiffs by the sale deed Ext.
642 of 1961 .
N. Rajagopal Sastri and R.N. Sashthey, for respondents Nos.
He, however, stated somewhat inconsistently under cross examination that on the date of registration of Ext.
April 19.
super tax ending ment.
1 to 4 in C.A. No.
95 and 520 of 1952.
assessed.
Kandiah, M. Rajagopalan and K.R. Chaudhri, for respondent No.
24 3 44 1944 45 25 2 48 Rs.
21,452 1 0 2 4 46 1946 47 31 3 48 Rs.
1 in C.A. No.
The purchasers who were impleaded as defendants 5 to 28 companytended that there was numberinvalidity in the proceedings for assessment of tax and that they having purchased those properties for the full amounts for which they were sold, sales in their favour though number companyfirmed were binding upon the plaintiffs.
52 of 1950 was tried with another suit being suit No.
641 of 1961 .
He acquired in that business a companysiderable estate which was treated by him as property of the joint family of himself and his sons.
Again there is on the record a statement made by Seshamma, before the Income tax authorities, wherein she had stated that when her husband died, she might have had with her about Rs.
That suit was decreed by the High Court on March 5, 1947.
Within nine days thereafter the deed of partition came into existence.
