LALITABAI BANWARILAL Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIS Lordship, after setting out the contentions of the parties, proceeded,] It was argued by Mr. R. J. Joshi for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the order of attachment and the prohibitory order both dated August 23, 1948, related to a matter concerning revenue or concerning collection of revenue according to the law for the time being in force. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935; That sub -section is as under : Until otherwise provided by Act of the appropriate legislature, no High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country or the law for the time being in force.

(2.) THE key stone of the argument was that the suit concerned revenue and an order for collection of income -tax dues as arrears of revenue. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff. The suit is primarily and essentially for a declaration of title to property which the plaintiff claims as her own; and which title is disputed by the defendants, and particularly by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Now, the plaintiff has nothing to do with payment of income -tax in this suit and this is not a matter concerning revenue nor is she herself concerned in anyway with any order of assessment or enforcement or collection of income -tax in pursuance of any order made against her father. That the suit was occasioned by some act done or ordered on behalf of defendant No. 1 is no doubt a factor which compelled the plaintiff to come to Court. But I do not see how the reason or motive which induced or forced the plaintiff to file this suit can affect the nature of the suit. Unless persuaded by some sound principle of law or compelled by any over -riding authority I am not prepared to read anything in Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, as depriving this Court of the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction to try a suit for declaration of title to any property which a person claims as his own and which title is disputed by the Government.

(3.) SHAIKH Ahmed v. Coll. of Bombay : (1949)51BOMLR589 was another decision relied on by Mr. Joshi. In that case an application for directions in the nature of habeas corpus was made to this Court by an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was made by a person detained in custody for non -payment of income -tax dues. It was held that provisions of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, applied to the facts of the case and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition presented to it. It must be noted that this was a case in which a party himself liable for non -payment of tax had come before the Court. This decision also does not carry Mr. Joshi's argument any further.