LAWS(APH)-1975-7-9

PENTAKOTA SURYA APPA RAO Vs. PENTAKOTA SEETHAYAMMA

Decided On July 15, 1975
PENTAKOTA SURYA APPA RAO Appellant
V/S
PENTAKOTA SEETHAYAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against an order of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S. No. 146/68, holding that certain income-tax returns and assessment orders produced by the income-tax department and sought by the plaintiffs can be marked as evidence. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the petitioners. The suit is filed for partition by the wife and daughter of one late Bapa Rao, the deceased brother of defendant No. 1, Defendants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of defendant No. 1 and the 4th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The suit for partition is filed alleging that Bapa Rao and the 1st defendant are the two sons of Appanna. 5th and 6th defendants are his two daughters. Appanna and his two sons constituted a joint family. Bapa Rao died on August 27, 1951, undivided with his father, Appanna, and his brother, the 1st defendant. On his death, under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, one-third share of Bapa Rao in the joint family properties devolved on his widow, the 1st plaintiff. After the death of Bapa Rao also, the family continued to be joint and the family business increased enormously and the family prospered till September 26, 1959, when Appanna, the father, died. After the death of Appanna, his son, the 1st defendant, and daughters, 5th and 6th defendants, and the two plaintiffs became entitled to his one-third share in the joint family properties. After the death of Appanna, the 1st defendant became the family manager. The plaintiffs together became entitled to 25/60ths share in the entire joint family properties.

(2.) THE defence set up in the suit is that after the death of Bapa Rao during the lifetime of the father, Appanna, they became divided and partitioned their house properties and other movable property into three equal shares and the three branches took possession of their respective shares. As regards the landed property owned by the joint family, the sharers agreed to keep the same jointly and accordingly the lands were kept joint and the rest of the properties have been partitioned. THE allegation that all the properties of the family are still kept joint is false.

(3.) IN the decision in Daulat Ram v Som Nath, [1968] 68 ITR 779 (Delhi), it was, held by the Delhi High Court that the privilege against disclosure continues after the repeal of the 1922 Act and after the repeal of Section 137 of the 1961 Act, in view of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was further held that subsequent legislation did not reveal an intention to destroy the privilege which had accrued in respect of documents, filed at a time when Section 54 was in force. It was also held in that case that the Commissioner of INcome-tax was made, under Section 138, the sole authority to decide whether it was in the public interest or not to furnish the information asked for and it is for the Commissioner to decide whether to furnish information or not. The prohibition about the supply of information cannot be set at naught by summoning a clerk of the income-tax department with the information asked for.