VENKATA SESHAVATHARAM Vs. CHAPALAMADUGU VENKATA RANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) ONE of the questions raised in this appeal is whether the defendants were agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The plaintiffs who are the appellants here claimed that the defendants were disqualified from claiming the status of an agriculturist under the Act by reason of their having been assessed to income-tax during the period specified in proviso A to Section 3, clause (ii), of the Act, that is to say, in either of the two financial years ending 31st March, 1938. It has been held by this Court in Rajoo v. Palaniappa Chettiar, that the disqualifying assessments must have been made not for the two financial years mentioned in the proviso, but must have been made in either of those years, as the assessments for any year need not necessarily be made in that year under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In order to establish the disqualification the plaintiffs filed Ex. P-6, a memorandum granted by the Collector of Kistna under Section 26 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to one Rattayya who was also a creditor of the defendants. This memorandum discloses that Chapalamadugu Rangayya who is admitted to be the manger of the joint family of the defendants was assessed to income-tax for 1936-37 as representing a Hindu undivided family and was not assessed for 1937-38. The memorandum thus throws no light on the point to be determined in the case, for as we have pointed out above what is relevant is not assessment to income-tax for the year 1936-37 and 1937-38 but assessment made in 1936-37 and 1937-38. Ex. P-18 is another memorandum granted by the same officer on the application of the plaintiffs. It states that Rangayya was not assessed to income-tax for the two financial years ending 31st March, 1937, and 31st March, 1938. So far as the financial year ending 31st March, 1937, is concerned, this memorandum flatly contradicts the statement in Ex. P-6 that Rangayya was assessed to income-tax for that year. Other similar memoranda granted to the defendants and other have been produced on the defendants side, Exs. D-5, D-6 and D-14 stating that no assessment in 1936-37 and 1937-38 was made on the said person.