Chaudhuri Raghubans Narain Singh vs The State Of U.P. And Ors.
- SCC(1972) 4 SCC 769
- AIRAIR 1972 SC 2096
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where material evidence bearing on a critical factual issue — such as the terms of an alleged relinquishment deed and surrounding circumstances — was not before the High Court, a finding by the High Court on that issue cannot be treated as conclusive, and the question must be decided afresh in an appropriate proceeding on consideration of the complete material. 2. The relinquishment of rights in family property by one member of a joint family does not result in or constitute a general partition of the family; such relinquishment by an individual member has no effect on the status of the joint family as a whole. 3. Where the questions arising for decision are matters that fall within the jurisdiction and expertise of authorities constituted under a special statute (here, the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act), the High Court should not entertain writ petitions in respect of those questions but should allow them to be decided at first instance by the authorities appointed under that Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. These appeals by certificate raise common questions of law. One of the questions that was canvassed before the High Court was whether the appellant had separated himself from the rest of the family namely his sons, in view of the relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by him on Aug. 24, 1948. The said deed was not before the High Court. Therefore, the High Court was not able to come to any firm decision on that point. That question has to be decided afresh in an appropriate proceeding after taking into consideration the terms of the deed as well as the other evidence bearing on the subject The finding of the High Court in that regard cannot be taken as conclusive in view of the fact that all the material was not before the High Court.
2. The other contention taken before the High Court was whether as a result of the alleged relinquishment of his rights by the appellant in his family properties it should be deemed that there was a general partition in the family. This contention has no legal basis as held by the High Court. The relinquishment of his rights in the family property by one of the members of the family does not result in a general partition in the family. It is not necessary to refer to decided cases on this point. It is a well accepted position.
3. No other question was raised before the High Court. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in entertaining these Writ Petitions. The question that arose for decision were questions that could have been decided under the provisions of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act by the authorities constituted under that Act. The High Court should have allowed those questions to be decided at the first instance by the authorities under the Act.
4. On the basis of the finding of the High Court it is clear that the assessments impugned in these appeals are assessments made on an H U.F. and not on the appellant individually. The learned Counsel for the Revenue represented that in enforcement of these assessments the Revenue will not proceed against the appellant personally or against his personal property. This assurance should be sufficient to remove the apprehension of the appellant.
5. For the reasons mentioned above these appeals fail and they are dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free