MAINA DEBI GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed by Maina Debi Goenka against the Union of India, S. Roy, ITO, 'L' Ward, and Central Bank of India, respectively, for a declaration .that the plaintiff was and is the owner and as such is entitled to a sum of Rs. 94,631.92 which is lying in the account of Keshab Prasad Goenka with the defendant No. 3 at its branch at No. 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, declaration that the purported notice under Section 46(A) of the I.T. Act, 1922, issued and served by the defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2 in respect of the said sum in enforcement of an assessment against Gouri Shankar Goenka (deceased), or against Keshab Prasad Goenka (deceased), as an heir of Gouri Shankar Goenka is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Keshab Prasad Goenka is the husband of the plaintiff and Gouri Shankar Goenka is the father-in-law of the plaintiff who was the son of Matrumal Goenka and Krishna Debi Goenka. According to the plaintiff on 4th June, 1953, Keshab Prasad Goenka opened an account with the defendant No. 3 at its branch at No. 3 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, and diverse sums of money were deposited in the said account even after his death. According to the plaintiff in the first place the said deposits belonged to Smt Krishna Debi Goenka who died on February 15, 1955, leaving the plaintiff as the widow of her pre-deceased son and as her only heir and legal representative. The case of the plaintiff is that she acquired a Hindu widow's estate in respect of the said sum of Rs. 93,611-6-9 (sic) and after June, 1956, after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, she became the absolute owner thereof. She has also made an alternative case that the moneys so deposited in the account of Keshab Prasad Goenka belonged to Keshab Prasad Goenka personally who died intestate on 24th February, 1954, leaving him surviving the plaintiff as his sole heir and legal representative and in respect of those properties she acquired a Hindu widow's estate. Even after the death of Keshab Prasad Goenka diverse sums of money have been deposited in the said account and after 17th June, 1956, the plaintiff became the absolute owner in respect thereof.

(2.) On 7th March, 1959, a notice under Section 43 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was served upon the plaintiff as legal representative of Keshab Prasad Goenka for recovery of demand against Keshab Prasad Goenka as heir and legal representative of Gouri Shankar Goenka arising in respect of an assessment made on 26th March, 1952, against Keshab Prasad Goenka, as son and heir of Gouri Shankar Goenka. The plaintiff protested before the Certificate Officer who rejected her objection wherefrom the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Presidency Division who by an order dated 21st June, 1959, allowed her appeal and set aside the said order. Thereafter, the plaintiff received a copy of a notice under Section 46(5A) issued by, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and addressed to the manager of the defendant No. 3 stating that a sum of Rs. 1,40,422.43 was then due from Keshab Prasad Goenka on account of income-tax in respect of Gouri Shankar Goenka and requested the defendant "No. 3 to pay to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which amount is held by the defendant No. 3 for and on account of the plaintiff. In paragraph 7 of the plaint the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Keshab Prasad Goenka is not personally liable as he has been assessed as heir and legal representative of Gouri Shankar Goenka.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, Keshab Prasad Goenka as legal heir and representative of Gouri Shankar Goenka never had any interest, right, title to the said sure of Rs. 94,63.92. According to the plaintiff, the said notice is wrongful as the moneys did not belong to Gouri Shankar Goenka or to Keshab Prasad Goenka as his heir and legal representative. The plaintiff has also stated that the said notice was issued mala fide and not in good faith. On 24th December, 1959, the plaintiff served a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code upon, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Subsequent to the notice the plaintiff was informed that the defendant No. 3 on 8th March, 1960, paid the said sum to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in compliance with the notice under Section 46(5A) of the I.T. Act. According to the plaintiff, the payment made by the defendant No. 3 was wrongful.