- (1.) These two appeals by certificate have been consolidated by an order of this Court dated April 15, 1969. They are directed against a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated February 14, 1967, in Regular First Appeals Nos. 5-D and 54-D of 1958,* by which the judgment and decree of the trial court dated January 13, 1958 have been set aside with costs throughout. As this has resulted in the dismissal of the suit raised by the Union of India, it has filed the present appeals. * (1968) 70 Pun LR (D) 71.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeals are quite simple. Harjas Rai Malhotra, defendant No. 3, is the father of Krishan Lal Malhotra, defendant No. 3 to Income-tax and super-tax for the assessment year 1947-48, was fixed at Rupees 1,25,090/11/- in March, 1952. A demand was made for its payment, but he neglected to meet it land a certificate was issued on October 8, 1952 to the, Collector of Delhi for its recovery as arrears of land revenue. The Collector was asked to attach house No. 15, Keeling Road and House No. 9, Haily Road in New Delhi, of defendant No. 3. Both the houses were attached on October 13, 1952. Meanwhile defendant No. 3 appealed against the order of assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal on May 12, 1953, set aside the assessment. and directed a fresh assessment. The order of fresh assessment was made on November 30, 1953 and the income-tax demand was reduced to Rs. . 1,05,769.13. The assessments for 1944-45 and 1948-49 were completed on March 28 and 31, 1953, respectively, raising a tax demand for Rs. 1,94,738.15. A recovery certificate was issued to the Collector for the same on May 4, 1953 and the house at No. 15, Keeling Road was again attached on August 6, 1953.
(3.) We are not concerned with the house at No. 9, Hailey Road, for the controversy before us relates to house No. 15, Keeling Road, hereinafter referred to as the house. That house had been ostensibly purchased by defendant No. 2 in December, 1946 for Rs. 60,000/-. He filed an application objecting to the attachment on the ground that the house belonged to him, but the Collector dismissed the objection holding that the house belonged to defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 did not appeal against that order and did not appeal against that order and did not question it by a suit.;