ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BANARES versus MAHARAJ KISHORE KHANNA

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 16-03-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
'959 
incomes within and without taxable territories is made 
unnecessary by demanding that this amount by way 
Mcgregor &· 
f 
h ]] b b 
h 
d 
' 
Balfour Ltd. 
o repayment s a 
e roug t to tax an ' treated as 
v. 
income within the previous year. The effect thus is 
Commissioner of that the sub-section charges the said amount with a 
Income-tax. 
liability to tax by its own force or ta borrow the words 
West Dengal 
of Lord Sumner, is apt to 'impose a charge'. 
In our opinion, the amount received as repayment 
Hidayatullah J. of excess profits tax must be deemed to be 'income ' 
I959 
March I6. 
for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act and for 
assessment it must be treated as income of the pre-
vious year. The answer to question No. 1 given by 
the Calcutta High Court was thus correct. 
The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BAN ARES· 
v. 
MAHARAJ KISH ORE KHANNA 
(JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.)' 
Execution of Decrees-Decree passed by Special Judge in U.P. 
• -If can be exernted outside U. P.-Extra-territoriality-Transfer 
of such decree-Collector and Additional Collector, if exercise same 
powers-Limitation-U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, r934 (U. P. 
XXV of I934), ss. r4(7) and 24(3)-Code of Civil Procedure, r908 
(V of r908), s. 39-Indian Limitation Act, r908 (IX of r908), Art. 
r82. 
The respondent, who owned landed properties at Banaras in 
Uttar Pradesh and at Purnea in Bihar, was heavily indebted and 
applied to the Collector, Banaras under s. 4 of the U. P. Encum-
bered Estates Act, 1934, for liquidation of his debts. 
The Collec-
tor, acting under s. 6, forwarded the application to the Special 
Judge, appointed under the Act who on March 21, 1940, passed 
after the enquiry directed by the Act three money decrees in 
favour of three creditors of the respondent and forwarded them 
to the Collector for execution. Section 14(7) of the Act provided 
that such decrees were to be deemed to be decrees of a civil Court 
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
365 
of competent jurisdiction. Section 24(3) of the Act provided 
x959 
that for purposes of execution against property outside U. P. such 
decrees were to be deemed to be in favour of the Collector. The 
Additional 
execution of the decrees was commenced by the Additional Collector, Banares 
Collector, Banaras against the respondent's properties in U. P. 
v. 
Thereafter, the Additional Collector applied to the Additional 
Maharaj 
Civil Judge, Banaras, and on January 4, 1947, got the said decrees Kishore Khanna 
transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Purnea and on March 17, 
1947. he applied to the Subordinate Judge for execution of the 
decrees by attachment and sale of the respondents properties at 
Purnea. The Subordinate Judge made an order directing execu-
tion to issue, but, on appeal, the High Court set aside the order 
on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the executiol). application. 
Held, that the Subordinate Judge Purnea had jurisdiction to 
execute the decrees. By virtue of s. 14(7) of the Act a decree of 
the Special Judge was, within U. P., a decree for all purposes of 
the Code of Civil Procedure and could properly be transferred 
under s. 39 of the Code for execution to a Court outside U. P. 
No question of extra-territorial operation of the Act arose in the 
application of s. 14(7) to the decrees as the Purnea Court was 
merely applying the U. P. Act to decrees passed in U. P. 
For the purposes of execution and sale the Additional Collec-
tor was to be deemed to be the Collector as he exercised the 
Collector's powers in this regard. As such the applications for 
transfer and execution of the decree were properly made by the 
Additional Collector. 
It was the same Court which exercised the powers of the 
Additional Civil Judge as also those of the Special Judge. The 
order of transfer of the decree made by the Additional Civil 
Judge could be treated as having been made by the Special 
Judge. As such it was made by the same Court which passed 
the decrees and was a good order under s. 39 of the Code. 
The application for execution before the Subordinate Judge, 
Purnea was made while execution proceedings in respect of the 
same decrees were pending before the Additional Collector, 
Banaras and was a continuation of the same. No question of 
limitation could arise in respect of such an application. 
..

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.