JANAKI S. MENON AND ORS. versus DR. V.R.S. KRISHANAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 04-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JANAKI S. MENON AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DR. V.R.S. KRISHANAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order 21, Rule 90-Auction sale for recovery of State dues-Objections 
to-Suit for partition of estate of decease~Arrears of Income Tax Wealth 
C 
Tax etc. to be recovered from the estate of decease~ertain property put to 
auction sale-Objections on the ground that since procedure provided under 
S. 222 of Income Tax Act was not followed, civil court had no jurisdic-
tion-Held, Income Tax and other dues are the first charge on the estate of 
the decease~Proceedings to recover the arrears of tax from the estate of the D 
deceased were rightly taken before partition of the estat~n the circumstances 
need to proceed under the Income Tax Act was obviated-Executing court 
has rightly proceeded with the recovery of the Tax due and to pay over the 
same to the State. 
Income Tax Act, 1961 : 
S. 222 and Schedule fl-Proceedings for recovery of tax-In a suit for 
partition of estate of the deceased proceedings for recovery of Income-tax and 
other taxes initiated-Held, in the circumstances, need to proceed under the 
Act was obviated. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13216-17 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.95 of the Kerala High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 1745 and 1980 of 1995. 
D.D. Thakur and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellants. 
AS. Nambiar, S. Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, 
Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar and 
K.K. Aggarwal for the 
E 
F 
G 
Respondents. 
H 
207 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High Court 
of Kerala made on November 1, 1995 in CRP Nos. 1745 and 1980 of 1995. 
The case has a chequered history, details of which need no repetition. 
Suffice it to state that the late V. Madhava Raja owed certain dues towards 
income tax, wealth tax and agriculture income-tax. On his demise, when a 
C partition suit, viz., OS. No. 1/64 was filed for division of the properties by 
meets and bounds amount the sharers, an attempt was made by the State 
to have the estate attached for recovery of the tax dues. Pursuant to an 
agreement between the parties, the Court passed an order avoiding attach-
ment and directed the Joint Commissioners to recover the dues from the 
D estate and pay over the same to the Income-tax and other Government 
dues. On an application, final decree was passed on July 15, 1967 in which 
the appellants had purchased 4/13th share. In the final decree proceedings 
for recovery of dues of the State certain properties came to be identified 
and ultimately Devi Vilas Palace was also agreed to be sold by order of 
the Court dated January 28, 1983 for recovery of the arrears. Several 
E attempts were made to sell out the properties to the co-sharers for realisa-
tion of the tax dues of the State remained unsuccessful. Consequently, by 
order of the court dated April 8, 1992, direction was given to sell the 
property by public auction. After due publicity, the property in dispute was 
sold on June 15, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 31,15,000. Under the terms of the 
F sale, 1/4th of the bid amount was required to be deposited forthwith and 
the balance amount was to be deposited within 15 days thereafter. In 
default, 1/4th amount was to be forfeited. In the meanwhile, pending the 
litigation, the matter reached twice to this Court. SLP (C) No. 8040/92 
came to be filed in this Court wherein this Court passed an interim order 
G directing stay of the confirmation of the sale. Resultantly, the auction 
purchaser-respondent filed an application in the Court on June 26, 1992 
seeking permission to withdraw from the auction. Pending that application, 
they filed another application on June 29, 1992 for extension of time to 
deposit 3/4th amount. Ultimately, by order dated September 19, 1992, this 
Court has dismissed the special leave petition with liberty to the executing 
H Court to confirm the sale already made etc, In the meanwhile, the Court 
•; 
~ 
JANAK! S. MENON v. V.R.S. KRISHANAN 
209 
passed vague orders on auction-purchaser's applications for permission to A 
withdraw from auction and for extension of time. Auction purchaser filed 
a revision in the High Court The learned single Judge further directed the 
trial Court to c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.