9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck on remand to the learned munsif for trial on merits. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs on the footing, inter alia, that he is the real owner of the disputed property which stands benami in the name of his nephew, Kali Kinkar Mitra, defendant No. 2. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 281A provides as follows: " 281 A. (1) No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a person (hereafter in this section refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defendant/appellants that as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not file a certified copy of the notice required to be given prior to the institution of the suit, the suit was barred by the provisions of section 281A. It may be stated here that in the plaint, there is a categorical statement that the plaintiff has issued a notice to the Income-tax Officer in respect of the disputed property in accordance with section 281A on July 20, 1981. The learned munsif took the view that section 281A was not complied with by the plaintiff and, as such, the suit was not maintainable in the present form. In that view of that matter, the learned munsif held that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the same. This order, dismissing the suit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has placed reliance upon a few decisions which are: a decision of the House of Lords in London Investment & Mortgage Co. Ltd. v. Worthington [1956] 38 TC 86 (CA), a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 377 and another decision of the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile .Mills Ltd., [1981] AIR 1981 SC 852. These decisions relate to the interpretation of statutory provisions and it is not necessary for us to refer to these decisions except to the last-mentioned decision in Lalappa's case, AIR 1981 SC 852, where it has been held that when the language is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to whatever may be the consequence, for, in that case, the words of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint. Sub-section (2) of section 281A does not, in our opinion, create any bar to the institution of the suit. It provides for a mode of proof of the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by sub-section (1) of section 281A. Whether the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this case has given notice as required to be given under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 281A will be proved by the production of a certified copy of such notice that may be issued by the Income-tax Officer. That proof will be adduced by the plaintiff at the final hearing of the suit. There is no indication in subsection (2) of section 281A that the plaintiff has to procure the certified copy of the documents as mentioned in sub-section (2) before the institution o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
