JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— It is permissible for judges to speculate on the philosophical edge of a human problem hidden by the litigative screen before setting down to examine its forensic facet? If it is, we may make an observation about the question posed in this case without pejorative implications. For many men in advancing age arrives a stage in life when to be or not to be stampedes them into doing things dubious before God and evasive before Caesar - and we have a hunch both the appeals before us smack of such a disposition as well be evident when the narration of facts and discussion of law unfold the story.

2. A brief statement of the circumstances leading to the single critical legal issue, proliferation into a plurality of points, may now be made. We begin with the facts in the Gujarat Appeal (Kantilal Trikamlal, (1969) 74 ITR 353 (Guj)) since the Madras Appeal (Ranganayaki Ammal : (1973) 88 ITR 96 (Mad)) raises virtually the same question, is plainer on the facts and may conveniently be narrated immediately after. To appreciate the complex of facts we choose to enunciate the principal proposition of law canvassed before us by the Revenue in the two appeals. Does a reli