1977 (6) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property?
2. Whether the third defendant is the owner of the suit property?
3. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
4. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?
5. Whether the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues by the third defendant?
6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Summary of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property?

The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of her purchases made under various sale deeds (exhibits A-3 to A-10) from 1961 to 1965. She provided evidence of possession and payment of kist, electricity charges, and other receipts. The court found that the plaintiff has got title to the suit properties based on the oral and documentary evidence presented.

Issue 2: Whether the third defendant is the owner of the suit property?

The first defendant contended that the properties were purchased by the third defendant benami in the name of the plaintiff. However, the court held that the first defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the benami nature of the transactions. The court concluded that the third defendant is not the owner of the properties and the plaintiff is the real owner.

Issue 3: Whether the court fee paid is not correct?

The court found the court fee paid by the plaintiff to be correct, and this issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue 4: Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?

The court held that the suit as framed is maintainable, and this issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue 5: Whether the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues by the third defendant?

The court found that the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax arrears due by the third defendant. The plaintiff's title and possession were established, and the properties were not considered benami.

Issue 6: To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

The court decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff, confirming her title to the suit properties and declaring that they are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues of the third defendant.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the judgment of the lower court was confirmed, establishing the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and rejecting the claim that the properties were held benami for the third defendant.