9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971-72 when the sons were declared as owners in possession of land through a collusive court decree." 2. Before we come to the issue, it will be pertinent to briefly enumerate the facts in the background of the same. Smt. Kamla Devi owned some agricultural lands. She had two sons who filed a declaratory suit against her in respect of two-third of the same in the Court of sub-Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura, on 8-2-1971 which was decided on the very same date as Smt. Kamla Devi did not contest the same. In the said suit it was mentioned that the said land was ancestral land, two sons of Smt. Kamla Devi with her were members of the joint family and it was about two years ago they effected family partition and took possession of the said land but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of family settlement as the land belonged to Smt. Kamla Devi alone as she got the same from her father which was meant to be given to her and not to her with her two sons. He submitted that question of family partition would not arise. The decree was only collusive. On one hand he argued and on the other he on the basis of the said decree wanted us to uphold the levy of the gift because as a consequence of the said decree, mutation was effected only then. As a matter of fact his main case was that since mutation of the property in question was done during relevant accounting year, it was rightly subjected to gift-tax by the GTO. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the AAC. 5. After taking into c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked many a times to get the revenue record corrected in respect of partition of land but the defendant always evaded and ultimately flatly refused on 30-1-1971 that no partition has taken place. 5. That the suit is within limitation as the defendant has refused to effect the entry in revenue papers on 30-1-1971. 6. That the plaintiff No. 2 is minor and the suit is being filed under the guardianship of his real brother. He has no adverse intent to that of plaintiff No. 2. 7. That the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 195 and the rights in the shamlat 30 times the land revenue which is Rs. 999.10. 8. That the defendant reside within the ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
