NRI legal services
. The only question is whether the aforesaid sum ceased to be, income by reason of the fact that on the 30th March the sum was carried to the suspense account by a reso- lution of the directors as a result of the request made by the firm that the outstanding debt due from it may be written off. He had further admitted that he used to pay rent by money orders in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. A part of the interest, it is said, is severed from the husband's estate when there is an alienation by the widow, and the reversioner when he takes the estate on surrender, takes it subject to the interest already created.
The first is that an alienation of property by a Hindu widow, in excess of her powers, though not binding on the inheritance, creates in the alience an interest commensurate with the period of her natural life. A person, who has acquired the widow's interest by adverse possession against her, occupies, according to the Madras decisions, as stated above, the same position as an alienee from the widow. Execution of decisions, etc. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint on the basis of which a case has been registered against the appellants, who are accused Nos.
The blood stains on the shirt and the trousers of the ;appellant were 'not observed in the first instance by either Babu Adam NRI Legal Services
or Sub-Inspector Chawan and it was only when the second panchnama was made at about 1-30 a. The undisputed facts are that the amount in question was the commission earned by the firm as managing agents of the company. In the instant case though defendant Bhanaram in his written statement had denied ownership of the plaintiffs he went on to add, This being a suit for eviction of a tenant, the question of ownership is not relevant to the suit.
(ii) the suit was not saved by s. The complaint of the complainant contained the following allegations: An analysis of the Madras decisions, referred to above, upon which the learned counsel for the appellant places his reliance, will show that the grounds upon which they purport to be based are of a threefold character. On facts, it must be held that defendant Bhanaram had without any doubt regarded the plaintiffs as landlords and owners of the suit house. In his cross-examination he clearly admitted that the lease from Nazul Department stood in the name of the plaintiffs and that the witness himself had produced that document in some other proceedings.
Under these circumstances, it is idle to contend that the aforesaid sum had not accrued. There can be no doubt under the circum- stances that the aforesaid sum was income which had accrued to the firm. 10 of the Limitation Act as the lease was for valuable consideration and the defendant was not therefore precluded by reason of the fact that the property was to his knowledge trust property, from relying on the provision of the law which prescribes the time within which such a suit should be brought.
- Every decision or order made under section 39 or section 40 or section 83 or section 99 or section 101 shall, if not carried out,- (a) on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court and NRI Legal Services
such decree shall be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person of the person or a multi-State co-operative society against whom the decision or order has been made; or (b) where the decision or order provides for the recovery of money, by executed according to law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue: 3 and 5, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'P.
on the 26th August, 1951,, after the appellant was brought back to the police station from the scene of the offence that these blood stains were noticed and were noted in the panchnama. In the books of the company main- tained by the firm the aforesaid sum was debited as an item of revenue expenditure and the profits were computed after deducting that sum. This matter is thus fully covered by the decision of this Court in Anar Devis case and it was not open to defendant Bhanaram to question the ownership of the plaintiffs- landlords.
Act') and Sections 120(b), 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The next question that falls to be determined is whether the sum of Rs. The amount was simultaneously credited to the managing agents' commission account. It is true that the, sum was not drawn by the firm but that can hardly affect the question of its liability to tax, once it is established that the income had accrued or- arisen to the firm 264 The mere fact that the company was withholding payment on account of a pending dispute cannot be held to mean that the amount did not accrue to the firm.
2,26,850-5-0 was part of the profit and gains which had accrued to the firm during the accounting year 1941-1942.