The Madras High Court set aside an order dismissing an application to admit documents under Wealth Tax Act, holding them relevant to determine personal liability of legal representatives in a suit for recovery from the deceased's estate.
Impugned order dated 07.10.2013 set aside; suit to be disposed of within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CRP (PD)No.2674 of 2014
and
MP No.1 of 2014
N. Jayachandran ... Petitioner
versus
V. Unnamalai Achi ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated 07.10.2013 made in I.A. No.69 of
2013 in O.S. No.7810 of 2010 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil
Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Vikash
for Ms.Hema Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.K. Newlin Frederick for M/s.A.R. Karunakaran
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No.69 of 2013 in O.S. No.7810 of 2010.
2
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision
Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
a) Notice of demand under the Wealth Tax Act issued to
M.Nilakantan, dated 30.03.1987.
(b) Statement of assets and liabilities of M.Nilakantan on date of his death (21.08.1988) certified by Chartered Accountant. The petition was filed under Order 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3
4
germane to the above suit, which is only for an adjudication of the respondent / plaintiff's claim against the defendants.
5
only from and out of the estate deceased M.Nilakantan, who had allegedly borrowed money from the respondent. The petitioner / second defendant as well as the remaining defendants in the suit have categorically pleaded in their written statement that they never borrowed any money from the respondent / plaintiff and they have also pleaded that for the liability of their father M.Nilakantan, who had allegedly borrowed money from the respondent, they cannot be held liable for the suit claim. The documents intended to be marked as Exhibits by the petitioner in I.A. No.69 of 2010 are as follows :-
a) Notice of demand under the Wealth Tax Act issued to M.Nilakantan, dated 30.03.1987.
(b) Statement of assets and liabilities of M.Nilakantan on date of his death (21.08.1988) certified by Chartered Accountant. The petition was filed under Order 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
father and the other documents is the statement of assets and liabilities of M.Nilakantan on date of death (21.08.1988) certified by the Chartered Accountant. The documents sought to be marked as
Exhibits are certainly relevant documents, since a categorical stand has been taken by the petitioner as seen from the written statement
6
as well as in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.69 of 2013 that the defendants never borrowed money from the respondent and for the alleged loan availed by M.Nilakantan, their late father, they cannot be held liable. This being the case, the documents referred to above are crucial for the purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioner/ second defendant as well as the remaining defendants are personally liable for the suit claim. However, the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application viz. I.A. No.69 of 2013 accepting the stand taken by the respondent that they are irrelevant documents.
10.07.2019
Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order vsi2
7
To
The XV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
8
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CRP (PD)No.2674 of 2014
10.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether documents under Wealth Tax Act are relevant for adjudicating liability of legal representatives of a deceased defendant in a money recovery suit
Whether the dismissal of an application to admit documents regarding assets and liabilities of the deceased was erroneous
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N. Jayachandran
V. Unnamalai Achi
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
