9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 5. Abdulgafar A. Maniyar (referred to as " donor " hereinafter) executed a document on 19-7-1975 purporting to give absolutely certain properties situate in Hubli to his minor sons by the first wife. Before the Gift-tax Officer there were several objections which the donor had raised and they were all rejected by the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the assessment, the donor had appealed and the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order dated 15-12-1984. The assessee is on second appeal reiterating his contentions. 3. Shri Parthasarathy, the learned Advocate for the assessee, canvassed several points which we proceed to consider seriatim. His first objection was that there was no valid gift inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the internal evidence may be relevant to know whether there was a completed gift. 7. It was argued that under Mahomedan law there cannot be a gift unless possession has been delivered. Delivery of possession could be in such a manner as the property admits of. As we have pointed out earlier the donor has acknowledged in the document that possession was given to the guardian of the donees. Therefore, from the date of document, the donor had changed the nature of possession assuming that he had some sort of control over the management of the properties gifted. As the parties were residing together and the donees being no other than the children of the donor, it must be held that there was effective delivery of possession. 8. The presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dan Law. 9. With regard to the order of the Civil Court, it is one rendered under section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Since there was some dispute between the donor and the guardian of the minor donees with regard to receiving of rent from the tenant, the tenant had sought permission to deposit the rent in Court. The Court had directed the tenant to deposit the rent in Court and further directed that such deposits may be paid to the donor. This is only a summary order permitting the tenant to deposit in Court the rent so that he may not run the risk of being evicted on the ground of " arrears of rent " inasmuch as there was a rival claim by two parties. First, an order under section 19 of the Rent Control Act does not settle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int canvassed by Sri Parthasarathy was that the document dated 19-7-1975 was only a family arrangement and in this behalf reference to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 807 and the decision of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Ziauddin Ahmed v. CGT [1976] 102 ITR 253, was made. The document dated 19-7-1975 is clear in language. The assessee did not purport to make any family arrangement. In fact, there could be no question of family arrangement for the properties belonged absolutely to him and the minor sons did not even have a semblance of right or a claim. The document is out and out a gift deed. The plea of family arrangement has to be straightaway rejected. 13. For all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
