9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the business of Vakil and Co. and the immovable properties situated in Masuda, Ramgarh, Vijaynagar and Ajmer which were admittedly part of the impartible estate of Masuda up to July 31, 1955, continued to remain the properties of the impartible estate of Masuda even after the abolition of the Istimrari estate of Masuda by the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Reforms Act, 1955, and, therefore, the income there from was assessable in the hands of the assessee as individual ?" The facts, as emanating from the statement of case : The applicant-assessee was the holder of the Istimrari estate of Masuda, situated in the District of Ajmer. According to the recital recorded in the books of the assessee dated August 18, 1955, spelling out partition of compensation to be received on resumption of the Istimrari estate of Masuda Thikana and has been the property of family of the assessee for the last 14 generations. On March 29, 1875, Shri Bahadur Singh, the grandfather of the assessee, was the holder of the Thikana Masuda and was paying revenue in respect of the es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... option were also laid, with which we are not concerned herein this reference. On the death of Shri Bahadur Singh, his eldest son, Shri Vijay Singh, succeeded to the Thikana of Masuda. On his death in 1938, his eldest son, Thakur Narain Singh, the assessee in the present case, succeeded to the aforesaid estate. The ancient impartible estate of Thikana of Masuda which was inherited by the present assessee, the eldest son, at the time of death of his father, consisted of (i) the Istimrari estate consisting of the villages mentioned in Schedule "A" to the Sanad of 1875, (ii) the immovable properties situated in Masuda, Ramgarh, Vijay Nagar and Ajmer, and (iii) the business in the name of Vakil and Co. The income from all these sources was assessed in the hands of the present assessee up to the assessment year 1944-45 as his individual income. In respect of the assessment year 1945-46, the assessment of the income from property in his hands as individual was questioned by the assessee following the decision of the Privy Council in CIT v. Dewan Bahadur Dewan Krishna Kishore [1941] 9 ITR 695. The present assessee's contention was accepted and a separate assessment for the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, as in force in the pre-reorganisation State of Rajasthan, with suitable modifications therein for making it applicable to the territories of erstwhile Abu, Ajmer and Sunil areas, were extended by enacting the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 being Act No. 2 of 1958. By this Act, the Revenue Regulation of 1877 as well as the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, were repealed. At this juncture, it may be recalled that before the abolition of Istimrari under the Act of 1955, the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, waspromulgated. Under that Act, certain primary rights were vested in the tenants from the holder of the estate and were provided protection against ejectment by the estate holders. Under section 17 of the Ajmer Act of 1950, the tenants were classified as (i) occupancy tenants, (ii) exproprietary tenants, (iii) hereditary tenants, (iv) non-occupancy tenants, and (v) the estate holder. The land which was not occupied by tenants but was in the self-cultivation of the Istimrardar was held to be Niji lot or Khudkasht as per section 10 of the said Act and such land was to be demarcated Khudkasht or Niji Jot. Und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the land to be allowed as Khudkasht in terms of that Chapter. Under section 30 the lands allotted to an intermediary under section 29 were to be held by the intermediary as a Khatedar tenant thereof. Under section 29 every intermediary was to be allotted all Khudkasht lands which he was cultivating personally in the previous agricultural years provided that the area of the land does not exceed the permissible limit prescribed under section 36. Under section 29(2) it was envisaged that if at the time of vesting, the intermediary was holding the area under his cultivation as Khudkasht exceeding the permissible limit he was entitled to select out of the total area in his personal cultivation any contiguous area of land not exceeding the permissible limit and he could be allotted alternate land not in excess of the permissible limit and any land in excess of the permissible land was to be surrendered to the State Government. If the contiguous area was not available then the intermediary was entitled to select such maximum compact area, the aggregate of which was not exceeding permissible limit. Likewise under sub-section (3) where the intermediary on the date did not go for perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family property which was abolished under the Act of 1955 and the claim for compensation has been submitted in August, 1955, under the said -Act, the assessee had three sons and in his capacity as father, he effected the partition of compensation on August 13, 1958, and thenceforth each of his three sons is the owner of 1/5th share allotted to him and he claimed 1/5th share as an exclusive owner of the compensation receivable, the remaining 1/5th share being the share allotted to his wife by partition. On this basis, the amount of compensation was excluded from the wealth of the joint family consisting of the assessee and his three sons. In the meantime, the income-tax returns of the assessee were showing his income as individual until 1955-56, which is in question was filed by the assessee in the status of an individual. In the said return, he claimed that the interest income received on the compensation amount was exempt as it was in the nature of capital receipt. The said return was revised by him on April 7, 1964, and a new return was filed along with that in the status of the Hindu undivided family and in the said return Of the Hindu undivided family the assessee has shown hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld never become the part of the impartible estate and therefore was always separate from the impartible estate though both belonging to the Hindu undivided family. In this connection, the contention was also raised that since the assessee has effected a partition of the compensation expressing the intention of the holder of the impartible estate to make it subject to partition, which was competent for the holder of the impartible estate to do, it lost its character of impartibility and the property, being of a Hindu undivided family, the income therefrom had to be taxed only in the status of the Hindu undivided family and not as an individual. The claim of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that part of his income belonged to him as an individual and that the rest of the income particularly from compensation, immovable property and Vakil and Co. belonged to him as the karta of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the aforesaid contention. It was contended by the assessee that the impartible estate had devolved on the basis of the principle of primogeniture in accordance with section 23 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his conclusion, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the interest received by the assessee on the compensation cannot be said to be his individual income. He also gave credence to the writing dated August 18, 1955, made by the assessee in his cash book dividing the compensation amongst himself and other members of the family and held that the said narration also went to show that the compensation and the income therefrom belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that the same cannot be considered as the individual income and property of Rao Narain Singh. However, he was of the opinion that for recognition of the partition, an order is required to be made under section 171 of the Income-tax Act under which the proceedings relating to the earlier period had continued. Such order has not been passed by the Income-tax Officer with regard to the alleged claim of partition. He directed the Income-tax Officer to hold an enquiry into the alleged partition and record a finding in respect thereof and to act thereupon by recording a finding under section 171. For the same reason, he also held that the income from properties, viz., Masuda house at Ajmer, ancestral Garb at Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ... There must be some act either of the Legislature or of the parties concerned, to remove the character of impartibility from the properties. Admittedly, there is no such Act ; even the alleged partition dated August 18, 1955, does not intend to partition these properties. How will then they cease to be impartible ? We are, therefore, of the opinion that the immovable properties and the business of Vakil and Co. continued to belong to the impartible estate of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was the karta and, therefore, the income therefrom would continue to be assessed on the assessee as the holder of the impartible estate. Sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (sec tion 27(ii) of the 1961 Act), gives authority for assessing the income from property in the hands of the holder of the impartible estate as an individual. As regards the income from the business of Vakil and Co., the general law which governs impartible estates lays down that the income of an impartible estate would belong exclusively to the holder of the impartible estate. (iv) Referring to the compensation of Rs. 7,22,595.26, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that "they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that "In law, an impartible estate can be made partible, and then divided amongst the members of the family. How it can be done has also been stipulated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chinnathayi v. Kulasekara, AIR 1952 SC 29 ........ After referring to the aforesaid observation of their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court, theTribunal observed : "This being the position of law, we are unable to accept the contention of the Department that the impartible property could not be partitioned at all during the life time of the present holder. If after looking into all the aspects of the matter and applying the law on the point as stipulated above, the finding is that the compensation has been made partible, the Income-tax Officer will have to undertake further enquiry as stipulated under section 171, whether, in fact, the partition had taken place in accordance with law. Until such an enquiry is made, an order under section 171 cannot be passed and without such an order having been passed, the income of the property cannot be assessed in the hands of the individual recipients. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, right in sending back the case to the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the estate from the assessee in the present form and gave in exchange to the assessee the compensation ? (iii) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the compensation received by the assessee in lieu of the Istimrari estate partook of the same character as the Istimrari estate and, therefore, constituted part of the impartible estate in the hands of the present applicant ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the business of Vakil and Co., and the properties situated in Masuda, Ramgarh, Vijaynagar, which were admittedly part of the impartible estate of Masuda up to May 30, 1955, continued to remain the properties of the impartible estate of Masuda even after the abolition of the Istimrari estate of Masuda with effect from May 31, 1955, by the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Reforms Act, 1955 ? (v) Whether, the Tribunal is justified in directing the Income-tax Officer under section 171, whether the impartible character of the compensation has been abrogated ?" The Tribunal, however, did not accept the request of the assessee for referring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d family at any time in past does not become part of the impartible estate. The property can be impressed with the character of impartibility only if the impartibility is by custom and not by statute. This is so on the basis of a query raised in the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpavathi Vijayaram v. P. Visweswar, AIR 1964 SC 118, wherein the court has said : "Unless the power is excluded by statute or custom, the holder of customary impartible estate, by a declaration of his intention, can incorporate with the estate self-acquired immovable property and thereupon, the property accrues to the estate and is impressed with all its incidents, including a custom of descent by primogeniture. It may be otherwise in the case of an estate granted by the Crown subject to descent by primogeniture." The aforesaid principle is the subject-matter of controversy of question No. 1. It is, undoubtedly not in dispute that the property of grant was an impartible estate belonging to the Hindu undivided family. The grant of estate related only to the agricultural lands and not the other immovable properties or the business. As found by the Tribunal, the immovable property and the business i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition of the Sanad dated March 29, 1875, read with section 23 of the Regulation of 1877. The Tribunal has not accepted this on the basis of a finding of fact that the Sanad itself recognises that the grant already existed and the grant of the Istimrari estate was not a grant for the first time vide Sanad on March 29, 1875. The Sanad of 1875 only spells out the concession in the form that the estate remains free from enhancement of assessment on fulfilling of the conditions mentioned in the Sanad but the document of March 29, 1875, is not a document of grant itself and the original Sanad having not been produced and it being admitted by the assessee throughout that the property has come by inheritance through the rule of primogeniture, the Tribunal has treated it to be an impartible estate by custom and not as a result of the Crown grant. This being a finding of fact, does not require to be upturned as the finding is based on relevant consideration and on the basis of material that was available on record. It cannot be doubted that on his own showing, and on the basis of the Sanad dated March 29, 1875, the grant of Istimardari was anterior to the Sanad and was already subjected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of impartibility is impressed with the property as a result of its nature as an Istimrari estate, would it survive after the basic foundation for applying the rule of primogeniture is removed ? For that the provisions of the Act of 1955 may be relevant, which we shall presently consider ; and, secondly, whether under the law of succession to which the petitioner is subject, the basic incident of impartibility, viz., rule of succession by primogeniture to male line of decent remains in existence after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to which undisputedly the parties are subject, which came into force with effect from June 17, 1956, the succession to all properties, including a coparcener's interest in coparcenary is governed by the provisions of that Act and not by any other custom or law ; except as envisaged under the provisions made thereunder. It may be clarified here that so far as compensation receivable by the assessee in lieu of vesting of the estate in the State, on abolition of Istimardari and its partition is concerned, it is not the subject-matter of thisreference and it has been held to be partitioned by volition by the erstwhile holder of the estate. Agricultural l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y consisting of father, his male lineal descendents in the male line of descent as one single separate unit and compensation is paid to that family as a unit. It is to be noticed that the Legislature has not used merely the expression "joint estate" nor merely "joint family estate", but has used the expression "joint Hindu family estate". This is clear acceptance of the existence of intermediary estates as belonging to Joint Hindu family consisting of all the coparceners consisting of lineal male descendents of the last holder of the estate, who had acquired the property by succession, albeit by the rule of primogeniture. On the undisputed facts the Istimrari estate of the assessee was an ancestral estate belonging to the Hindu undivided family of which Rao Narain Singh was the last holder. The compensation granted to the holder of the estate namely, father Narain Singh was not only for himself alone but for himself and his family which included all members in the male line of descent. Thus, the family, accepting the basic principle of Hindu coparcenary, as a unit was recognised to be allotted compensation on resumption of estate which is held by the holder at the time of vesting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of such Khudkasht land as was in his personal cultivation on the date of vesting, to the extent and subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in section 26. Chapter VI deals with the management of land and estate acquired under the Act. As noticed by us above, section 26 defines the "permissible limit" of land which the intermediary can be allowed to hold after abolition of the estate. Section 27 requires the erstwhile intermediary to make application for allotment of land disclosing the land which is in his possession as Khudkasht or under personal cultivation and other relating particulars revealing whether he holds the land in excess of the permissible limit or less than the permissible limit or holds no land under personal cultivation. It is after enquiry under section 29, that the estate holder is allotted land whether out of the land retained by him in his possession under section 7 or other land on the basis of the principle laid down in those provisions, but apart from compensation. He holds such land only as allowed under section 29 after resumption of the estate and on resumption of estate the allotment of land under section 29 puts him in the status of a Kh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he members of the family could not get a partition effected because of the fact that by custom the Jagir property was impartible in nature and was governed by the rule of primogeniture. However, since the Jagir was resumed, the impartible character of the property was lost and the joint family property became subject to partition. So the co-sharers could exercise other rights as coparceners, in the joint family property. The Khudkasht land held by the Jagirdar must, therefore, be held by him on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint Hindu family, of which he was the karta and although the ex-Jagirdar became the khatedar tenant in respect of such khudkasht land, yet the khatedari rights were held by him on behalf of the joint Hindu family of which he was the karta. The junior members of the family were entitled to seek partition of the joint family property, namely, the khudkasht land held in the name of Gopal Singh". This decision of the learned single judge was referred by a Division Bench with approval in Maharajadhiraj Himmat Singhji v. CWT [1984] 150 ITR 416 (Raj). That was also a case of claiming the status of the Hindu undivided family after resumption of Jagir granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lition Act the office of watan was abolished and the estate of watandar was resumed. However, on resumption of the property of watan lands, watan lands were regranted to the holders for the time being on the ordinary tenure. A suit for declaration was filed by the erstwhile holder of the watan against his two brothers and mother that the property in question formed part of impartible estate and the plaintiff being watandar was entitled to remain in full and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the other members of the family had no right, title or interest therein but were only entitled to maintenance and residence. He demanded a decree for exclusive possession of the family residential house. The court after examining the provisions of the watan, held : " It seems plain to us that the effect of Act No. 60 of 1950 and Act No 22 of 1955 was to bring about a change in the tenure or character of holding as watan land but they did not affect the other legal incidents of the property under personal law. It will be convenient to deal first with the provisions of Act No. 60 of 1950. Section 3 of the Act lays down that, with effect from, and on, the appointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt surrounded the inam lands and houses and building properties built from the income of inam lands, the said inam lands and the properties acquired therefrom were held to be ancestral impartible estates since succession to them was governed by the rule of primogeniture and constituted joint family property. It was further held that rule of impartibility and the special mode of succession by the rule of lineal primogeniture were nothing but incidents of the inam which stood extinguished by section 158(1)(b) of the Code and the land which were allowed to be retained by the inamdar were conferred with the bhumiswami rights very much the same as khatedari rights in the present case. The question that arose before the Supreme Court was whether inam lands which became bhumiswami under section 158 of the Code were selfacquired property of the bhumidar and could not be subjected to partition at the behest of the suitors. The court following the principle laid down in Nagesh Bisto Desai's case, AIR 1982 SC 887, and after referring to the principles governing the impartible estate belonging to the joint Hindu family as laid down in Sartaj and other cases referred to above, held : "Im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years immediately before the date of the resumption; (ii) all open house sites purchased for valuable consideration; (iii) all private buildings, places of worship, wells, etc., situated in house site specified in clauses (i) and (ii) ; (iv) all groves wherever situated and lands appurtenant thereto shall continue to belong to and be held by the Jagirdar and be settled on him ; (v) all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings in the occupied lands shall continue to belong to or be held by the family. Thus it is clear that all private properties including buildings in the Jagir belonged to or held by the Jagirdar remained to be the property of the Jagirdar. All private properties in the Jagir other than impartible Jagir, therefore, remained to be joint family property. We, therefore, hold that Schedule I properties are partible. The preliminary decrees for partition of them are upheld. It is seen that 100 bighas of land in Chandurpura was granted as Jagir. What had remained after the Act is hardly 5.41 bighas. So the rest of the lands obviously, was resumed by the Government, under the Act. By operation of section 18 of the Act it is the Jagirdar who is entitled to receive compe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case in respect of immovable house properties and business of Vakil and Co. which were undisputedly part of the ancestral property belonging to the Hindu undivided family of the assessee which was attached with incidents of impartibility because of the status of its holder as Istimrardar holding Istimrardari estate. On the resumption of Istimrardari, his status as Istimrardar came to an end and the properties held by him were detached from the incidences of impartibility which it had so acquired because of the fact that the same were held by the holder as Istimrardar and regained its character as an ordinary property of the Hindu undivided family. The principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895. This was again a case of resumption of watan lands and the court referring to Dattatraya's case, AIR 1991 SC 1972, said : "The statute also can abrogate the operation of the custom and succession to watan property by rule of primogeniture and the Act in fact did achieve that object, abolished the office of watan and liabilities appertaining to it including the burden of service and, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned, it is payable to the family, in case the last holder is holding the estate as a joint family under section 10 read with clause (1) of the Schedule. It is the family as defined in clause (1) of the Schedule that gets the right to secure the compensation through the holder, for the benefit of all the members constituting the family. The position of the other maintenance holder to whom compensation has been granted or the distant members of the family who have a share in the compensation may have to be governed by different consideration with which we are not presently concerned. But so far as the property remaining in the hands of the holder is concerned, which otherwise was part of joint ancestral property, it retains its character as such joint ancestral property, but is detached of its impartible character because it no more remains an estate of "Istimrardar" who was governed by the rule of primogeniture to a single heir in the male line of descent, but is held by the erstwhile Istimrardar unburdened of his status of Istimrardari, as any other commoner. From the statement of law emerging from the aforesaid decisions, it is clear particularly in the case of Dattatraya, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force immediately before the commencement of this Act ceased to have effect with respect to any provision made in the Act : clause (b) gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to the extent that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act ceased to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (2) only excludes from the operation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the law relating to prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or in respect of devolution of tenancy rights in such holdings in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. Obviously, sub-section (2) governs only the law of succession to agricultural lands and is not extended to any other properties movable or immovable. In the present case, the properties with whose income we are concerned are either immovable properties consisting of lands and buildings other than agricultural lands or the business run by the assessee as part of his ancestral property. Hence, to both the types of properties section 4(1) operates. Section 5(ii) only saves the speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property of any person is governed, and what are the incidence of such rules governing the principle of succession is a matter of law to which any property for the time being is subject. The latter question always refers to state in present and depends on personal law or a codified law governing succession of any person. If the law is abrogated, the applicability of the new law becomes immediately effective from the date the law is changed and the property becomes subject to new law. It may further be noticed that an estate becomes impartible not because succession has taken place by the rule of succession to a single heir or by the rule of primogeniture to a single heir in the male line of descent ; but it becomes impartible because as and when succession opens it shall be subject to the rule of inheritance by primogeniture in the male line of descent. Because it was subject to rule of succession to a single heir in the male line of descent, it became impartible importing unrestricted power to alienate and excluding claims to partition. Impartibility shall stand destroyed when it becomes subject to rule of succession otherwise. Therefore partibility or impartibility is to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asanthana law, The court said that the effect of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act above referred to is that after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act an undivided interest of a Hindu would devolve as provided for under section 7(2) while in the case of separate property it would devolve on his heirs as provided for in the Hindu Succession Act and on that basis the suit for partition was held to be maintainable. The said statement was again reiterated by the Supreme Court broadly in Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895, that the statute also can abrogate the operation of custom and abolition of watan and acquisition of watan property governed by the rule of primogeniture, in fact did achieve that object. Any provision which abrogates the provision of custom and succession to any property, will have its immediate effect on the continuance or discontinuance of the impartibility of the estate with effect from that date. The principle was accepted by the Gujarat High Court in Pratapsinhji N. Desai v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 77. The court said : "The clear effect of section 4 is that if there is any provision made in the Act in respect of any matter governed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vorship was, however, never superseded. The eclipse of the rights of the members of a joint family in regard to (1) right of partition, (2) right to restrain alienations by the head of the family except for necessity, and (3) right of maintenance, fell apart consequent upon the enactment of section 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The rights of the members of the joint family shined forth in full lustre. Thus, although the status of the assessee was that of an 'individual' from 1950 till September, 1956, after that period he was entitled to the status of member of a Hindu undivided family. He is, therefore, entitled to be treated and assessed as such." The court in coming to this conclusion, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sundari v. Laxmi, AIR 1980 SC 198, and followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court referred to above in Pratapsinghj'i N. Desai's case [1983] 139 ITR 77. We are in respectful agreement. The contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. U. C. Mahatab, Maharaja of Burdwan [1981] 130 ITR 223 (Cal), with utmost respect does not state the law correctly and we express our inability to agree with the same. The question of abrogatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the provisions of section 23 were resurrected. No provision under the General Clauses Act or the provisions of the Tenancy Act as extended to the Ajmer area could revive the provisions which were no more applicable to any estate which itself has ceased to exist. It is not even the case of the Revenue that Istimrari continued up to the period when the provisions of the Revenue Laws (Extension) Act came into force. The provisions of Act No. 2 of 1958 in no circumstances could revive the existence of Istimrari along with the applicability of section 23 thereto. Section 23 of the Regulation of 1877 became inoperative as soon as Istimrari was abolished and no more remained in existence. What has been said under the General Clauses Act or by the provisions of section 9 of Act No. 2 of 1958 are only about the existing rights as on the date but not the revival of non-existing rights. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that question No. 2 is to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that the impartibility attached to the estate held by the applicant assessee stood destroyed on the abrogation of Istimrari under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
