9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated October 8, 1973, issued by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent by his order dated June 11, 1974. 2. One M. D. T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar died on 25th December, 1957. He had three sons by his legally married wife and four sons other than through his legally mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same state of affairs continued and the receiver appointed in the partition suit, O.S. No. 25 of 1955, continued to be assessed as an individual. As a result of the decree in the partition suit and on the basis that Kumaraswami Mudaliar and his sons constituted a joint family, a notice has been issued by the second respondent in 1973, proposing to revise the assessment invoking his powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiver in the status of an individual, he has no power to change his opinion and make an assessment treating the estate of Kumaraswami Mudaliar as an HUF as is proposed by him in the notice. The petitioner's contention that Kumaraswami Mudaliar before his death and later the receiver had disclosed all necessary and material particulars for deciding the question of status and that the assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UF. 5. We have to, therefore, hold that this writ petition is premature. Further, the matter involves investigation of facts. The proper thing for the petitioner is to go before the second respondent and put forward his objections and if ultimately any adverse orders are passed against him by the second respondent, he can challenge that order in appropriate proceedings. 6. The writ petition is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
