SEMAKURTI SOMANNA Vs. VANKADARI SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out Original Suit No. 92 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru which was a suit instituted by one Seemakurthi Peda Sattemma alias Sattemma whose estate, because of her death pending the litigation, is now represented by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal. The appellants are the second defendant and his sons, defendants Nos. 3,4 and 6. The original plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 4,170-3-3 from all the defendants who were six in number on the following allegations :

(2.) THE plaintiffs deceased husband Subbarayadu and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were brothers the other defendants being the sons of the second defendant. THE three brothers were partners in a business known as Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill. THE plaintiff deposited with the mill various sums from time to time which were duly credited in the accounts of the mill on the understanding that the moneys so deposited should be paid back to her with interest whenever she demanded. THE mill business being a family business of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, all the defendants are liable for the amount due to her. THE trial court found that the first defendant was not a partner of the business and decreed the claim against the other defendants on its finding that the moneys were deposited with the firm as alleged by the plaintiff. That decree was confirmed on appeal preferred by the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 by the District Judge, West Godavari. THE present second appeal is directed against that appellate decree.

(3.) IF income-tax returns and their annexures are public documents within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, surely they are admissible, as pointed out by the Full Bench, under section 65(e) of that Act. Mr. Sankara Sastry also urges that such copies can be given by the Income-tax Officers only to certain specified persons and that copies obtained by others persons in violation of the rules authorising the concerned officers of the Income-tax Department to grant such copies cannot be used in courts as such user would tend to nullify the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act. The Full Bench decision refers to paragraph 85 of the Notes and Instructions complied by the Income-tax Department for the guidance of its officers wherein it is stated that "the following persons shall, in practice, be allowed to inspect or to receive copies; (i) in any case, the person who actually made the return; (ii) any partner (known to be such) in a firm registered or unregistered to whose income the return relates; and (iii) the manager of a Hindu undivided family to whose income the return relates, or any other adult member of the family who has been treated as representing it."