TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The facts pertaining to the issue speak of inconsistent stand held by the assessee in respect of this property and certain actions of the revenue also speak of inconsistent treatment granted in certain matters which should be relevant for the issue. The assessee Shri T.S. Madan, has a very small family constituting of himself, his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur and only son Shri Deshvir Singh. 3. A plot was originally purchased in the name of the assessee's wife Smt. Satwant Kaur with the joint hands of the assessee Sh. T.S. Madan And Smt. Satwant Kaur. Both of them constructed jointly S.C.O. 85-86, Sector 17 'C', in the accounting year relevant for the asst. yr. 1971-72. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried in Civil Court by Smt Satwant Kaur and Shri Desghvir Singh on 19th May, 1973., and the same came to be adjudicated by the Addl. Sub Judge III Class, Patiala, on 14th June., 1973 that Smt. Satwant Kaur and Shri Deshvir Singh had 1/3rd share each in S.C.O. 85-86, Sector 17 'C', Chandigarh, Many more things happened as at one stage it was disclosed to the revenue as if the assessee and his wife had thrown the property into common hotch potch but about that the assessee come forward with an explanation that the same was due to mistake of his lawyer Shri P.N. Jain. 7. Due to all confusion, the revenue not only doubted the bona fide of the assessee and entered a pool of suspicion but went to the extent to say that even the decree obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revenue should keep away from the question whether the decree of a civil court is collusive and he submitted that in the instant case the revenue has not proved that the same is collusive and in the light of this he wanted that the assessee's share in the said property be determined at 1/3rd only and not on the basis of original investment made by him and his wife. 9. The ld. Deptl Rep, Shri R.S. Khichi, on the other hand, beside relying on the orders of the two lower authorities, submitted that the assessee's stand may be inconsistent in the stand of the revenue and in case the assessee has adopted stands inconsistent and whatever suited him from time to time it is he who must suffer. He called the said family settlement and putting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistent and shifting stands which may be due to ignorance, lack of planning and too much of caution But the development of entire case and looking to the inconsistency, all that we can say is that it causes suspicion and do is not smell all fair from the revenue's point of view. The reading of the plaint made by Smt Satwant Kaur and Shri Deshvir Singh and quick decision on the same as per prayers of the plaintiffs and the agreement of the defends the assessee. within short time may also cause some suspicion and confusion in the mind of the revenue but to go the extent of calling the same 'collusive' without any challenge being brought against the said decree by anyone does not remain binding into so alone but for rest of the world as well i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiffs are in Possession of respective shares with they had got in the family settlement dt. 20th November 1970. 4. That the defendant had got no right or interest in the property which has come to the plaintiffs. xxx xxx xxx xxx Judgment dt. 14th June.,1973. "The plaintiff have filed the suit for declaration alleging that plaintiff No. 1 is the exclusive owner and in possession of 1/3rd share of shop-cum-office No. 75, Sector 17-'C', Chandigarh, and plaintiff No.2 is the owner and in possession of 1/3rd share of the above mentioned building and the defendant has got no right, title or interest in the said property. 2. According to the plaintiff, on 20th Nov., 1970 there was a family settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her issues raised by both the parties before us or relied upon by the two lower authorities would be futile war of words and would become academic because what would hold the field regarding the issue is the order of the court which stands unchallenged till today by anyone whatsoever. In the light of the above observation, we are not encumbering this order with the other contentions. The assessee's contention, therefore, in respect of all these three appeals is accepted and his share would be 1/3rd only in the said property. 14. Before we part, we may also mention that the contention of the revenue would not hold the field that even if the court order is to be the last word on the issue it must be effective from 14th June, 1973. We are u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
