9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (4) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal District Magistrate of Kanpur dated 17th October, 1955, dismissing certain objections filed by the petitioner before him. There is a firm named Sarveshwar Bhagwati Pd. with its office at Generalganj, Kanpur. Sri Sarveshwar, husband of the petitioner, is one of the partners of the firm. Sales tax is due from the firm for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54, which the firm has omitted to pay. The Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards the objections filed by the petitioner, the Additional Collector says that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that the house was purchased from her stridhan property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Additional District Magistrate has attached the property and it is he who is proceeding to sell it, but he has no jurisdiction to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. We may further state that under sub-section (3) of section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act it is open to the State Government to issue orders authorising an Additional Collector to exercise and perform the powers and duties of a Collector. Sub-section (4) then says: "This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The question whether the petitioner is the owner of the attached property or she is merely a benamidar for her husband and the property belongs to her husband, is a disputed questions of fact. The Additional Collector has held that she is merely a benamidar for her husband. A question like this can more satisfactorily be determined in appropriate proceedings in a regular civil suit. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
