What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it is for the defendants to prove their claim of self-acquired property and that income tax returns are not decisive. The court also stated that the names and addresses of will witnesses are sufficient.

In a partition suit, the petitioner sought to compel the defendants to produce income tax returns and particulars of attesting witnesses for a will. The trial court rejected this application.

What were the issues?

Whether income tax returns are decisive in proving property acquisition and if detailed particulars of will witnesses must be provided to the opposing party.

H B Narappa vs G B Nagaraj | Karnataka High Court 2013

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA

WRIT PETITION Nos.6918-6920/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN: H B NARAPPA, 80 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA CHAMARAJPET DAVANAGERE-577006.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI M V HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND

G B NAGARAJ, 55 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA NO.3682/A-27 TARALABALU EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577006

G B NATARAJ, 57 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA R/O GANDHINAGAR HULIKATTE POST DAVANAGERE TALUK-577006

DR B CHANDRANATHA, 53 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA PROP: NANJAMMA HOSPITAL MARUTI EXTENSION, MALUR 563130, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

SMT NARAMMA, 66 YEARS W/O MAHADEVAPPA C/O BASAVESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI DAVANAGERE TALUK & DIST-577006

2 5. SMT SAVAMMA, 65 YEARS W/O KALLAPPA R/O HULIHAL BISTUVALLI POST CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577501

SMT GANGAMMA W/O BASAPPA, 62 YEARS NO.1660/10, TARALABALU EXTENSIOND, DAVANAGERE-577006

SMT GOWRAMMA, 60 YEARS W/O BASAVARAJAPPA DOOR NO. 3681/A5, TARALABALU EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577006

SMT SHOBHA W/O RAVI, 50 YEARS DOOR NO. 1780/65 VIDYANAGARA DAVANAGERE-577006

SMT SUVARNA, 47 YEARS W/O SANKAPPA PRASHANTH AGRO FERTILIZERS S S COMPLEX, K R ROAD DAVANAGERE-577006

10.

SMT SUNANDA, 44 YEARS W/O NATARAJA GANDHINAGARA HULIKATTE POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006

11.

RAVI, 45 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006

12.

RAGHU, 43 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006

3 13. RAJU, 42 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006.

... RESPONDENTS

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-L & ETC.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

In a suit for partition filed by petitioner/plaintiff, defendants no.1 and 3 have contended that suit items No.A-4 and A-27 are self-acquired properties and they have also profounded will dated 26.02.1996.

The petitioner had made an application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, calling upon defendant no.1 to produce his income tax returns from the year 1993-94 to 2009-10 and furnish particulars of attesting witnesses of will dated 26.02.1996. The learned trial judge has rejected the application.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

The defendants 1 and 3 have contended that suit items No.A-4 and A-27 are their self-acquired properties. Therefore, it is for defendants 1 and 3 to prove this fact. Even otherwise, declaration made in the income tax returns is not decisive of nature of acquisition. The law does not contemplate that particulars of witnesses should be furnished by the party to the opponent. The names and addresses of witnesses would suffice the purpose. The learned trial judge has rightly dismissed the application.

There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Np/-

H B NARAPPA vs. G B NAGARAJ

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments