LexSHRI KISHORI LAL versus MST. CHALTIBAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r958 were part of the transactions of sale of liquor which . -. . . produced the profit and therE1fore they had a profit Pu•J.•b D15tilhng making quality. Again, a wholesaler was quite free Industms Ltd. to return the bottles or not as he liked and if he did The c0,;;;.issioner not return them, the appellant had no liability to re- o/ In<ome-1••· fund. It would then keep the moneys as its own and Simla they would then certainly be profit. The moneys when paid were the moneys of the appellant and were Sarhar J. thereafter in no sense the moneys of the persons who paid them. Having given the matter our anxious consideration which the difficulties involved in it require, we think that the correct view to take is that the amounts paid to the appellant and described as "Empty Bottles Return Security Deposit " were trading receipts and therefore income of the appellant assessable to tax. We agree with the High Court that the question framed for decision in this case, should be answered in the affirmative .. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs in this Court. Appeal dismiaatd. SHRI KISHORI LAL v. MST. CHALTIBAI . (JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) ' Hindu Law-Adoption, proof of-Evidence not proving adop- tion-Estoppel-Both parties knowing true facts. if doctrine applic- able-Admissions and conduct of parties, if can prove adoption. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession of certaiµ properties left by her deceased husband L .. The appel- lant contested the suit on the grounds that L had adopted him as his son six months before his death. In addition to the.oral evidence of adoption the appellant alleged that he performed the obsequies of L as such adopted son, that on the thirteenth day after the death of L he was taken by the respondent in her lap, that he entered into possession of the estate of L, that the (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 699 respondent performed his marriage and that he was recognised as the adopted son of L even by the respondent. The appellant further pleaded that the respondent was estopped from challeng- ing his adoption by her representations in previous legal proce- edings and in documents and on account of the fact that the appellant had by this adoption lost his share of the propei;ties in his natural family. The respondent denied both the adoption and the treatment of acceptance of the appellant as the adopted son of L. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding the adop- tion proved. On appeal the High Court held the adoption was not proved and decreed the suit. Both Courts held that the respondent was not estopped from challenging the adoption. Held, that the High Court had correctly held that the adoption of the appellant by L had not been established. As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, the evidence to support it should be such that it should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. Held further, that the respondent was not estopped from disputing the adoption. The correct rule of estoppel applicable in the case of adoption is that it does not confer status; it only shuts the mouths of certain persons if they try to deny the adoption. But where both farties are coversant with the true state of facts the doctrine o estoppel has no application. Admis- sions made by a party are not conclusive, and unless they con- stitute estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they were mistaken or were untrue. Presumptions arising from the con- duct of a party cannot sustain an adoption even though it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place. Mohori Bibi v. Dhurmdas Ghosh, (1902) 30 I.A. II4, relied upon. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Septem- ber 28, 1953, of the former Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No. 115 of 1951, arising out of the judg- ment and decree dated July 25, 1951, of the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1957. C. B. Aggarwala and Radheylal Aggarwal, for the appellant. S. -P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respon- dent. 1958. December 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAri K isliori Lal v. M sl. Clialtibai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.