TULSIRAM SANGANARIA Vs. ANNI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been brought by certificate from a common judgment of the Orissa High Court.

(2.) Five different suits were filed against certain defendants on the foot of five different pronotes. All the five suits were heard together and were decreed by the trial Judge. In respect of two suits the valuation being low the appeals were preferred before the District Judge and in three suits the appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals. It is altogether unnecessary to refer to the points in controversy between the parties because the sole question which has been agitated before us relates to the admissibility of certain assessment orders on which reliance has been placed for deciding whether the contesting defendants were the partners of firm Surajmal Manilal on whose behalf the pronotes had been executed. The learned subordinate Judge had found that the suit transactions were genuine and execution on behalf of the firm as well as the passing of consideration had been proved. He had further found that the contesting defendants were joint with their uncle Manilal in 1949 and that they were the partners of the firm Surajmal Manilal being members of a trading family. and therefore they were liable to the extent of the assets of the joint family in their hands. It appears that the assessment orders were produced not by the contesting defendants but by the son of Manilal who was the assessee. After examining Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, l922 and the various decisions of the High Courts the learned Judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that the general consensus was that if a copy of the assessment order or a certified copy thereof was produced by the assessee waiving his privilege it would be admissible in evidence.

(3.) Section 54 (1) of the Act was in the following terms: