The assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were binding on the plaintiffs, and their challenge to the assessments could not be entertained in a civil court. The liability to pay tax had arisen before partition, and the sales of properties were valid despite the purchasers' failure to deposit the balance of the purchase money within the prescribed time.

CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -

These two appeals are against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in O. S. Nos. 52 of 1950 and 54 of 1949. The two suits giving rise to these appeals were instituted by the same plaintiffs for the purpose of setting aside some sales. As the subject-matter of the suits was practically the same and the plaintiffs were the same they were tried together and a common judgment was delivered.

2. In O. S. No. 52 of 1950 the 1st defendant is the Union of India, defendants 2, 3 and 4 the District Collector, Kurnool, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal and the Tahsildar, Nandyal, respectively. The other defendants are the purchasers of various items of property in auction held by the revenue authorities. The suit was brought for a declaration that the assessment orders made by the Income-tax Officer, Kurnool, in G. I. No. 3810/44-45, 45-46 and 46-47 are unenforceable against the suit properties of the plaintiffs and consequently the sales of those properties by the revenue authorities were void and illegal and for other consequential reliefs.

3-4. The circumstances leading up to this suit are the following : -

The plaintiffs, three in number, and their father one Nagappa, constituted members of a joint Hindu family. The father carried on business in cotton and yarn and earned large profits. For the accounting years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 assessments were made on 25-2-1948 and 12-3-1948 and 15-4-1948 and the tax payable by the asses-see in regard to these three years amounted to Rs. 1,23,223-5-0. As the assessee defaulted in making the payment, the Income-tax Officer forwarded to the District Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears from the assessee. On receipt of the certificate, the Collector proceeded to recover from the assessee the amounts specified under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is in the process of realisation of these arrears that the properties in suit were brought to sale and purchased by defendants 6 to 29. Before confirmation of the sales could take place, the plaintiffs moved the High Court of Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained stay of further proceedings. It is to avoid these sales that the present action has been laid on the contentions that the assessments were illegal for the reason that the Income-tax Officer violated the provisions of the S. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in that he held an (no ?) inquiry under that section although he was informed of a partition that took place in the family while the assessment proceedings were pending, that the assessments were based not upon the accounts produced by the assessee but upon the estimates made by the Income-tax Officer and as such not enforceable against the plaintiffs and that the minors were under no obligation to pay the debts as they were Ayavaharika debts having been incurred by their father in a trade which was speculative in nature and that in any event items 46 to 51 which formed their separate properties could not be proceeded against.

5. The suit was contested by a written statement filed by all the defendants. The defence raised by the Union of India, the 1st defendant, was that the alleged partition was a fictitious one, the document therefor having been brought into existence with the deliberate intention of avoiding payment of income-tax, that in fact no claim was put in before the Income-tax Officer that a partition should be recorded and that the assessments were enforceable against the properties in question as they related to a period prior to partition and that lastly the assessment having been made against the father of the plaintiffs as the kartha of the joint Hindu family the plaintiffs share in joint family properties was liable to tax, and the properties were liable for the discharge of the fathers legal liability even under the doctrine of pious obligation.

6. The trial Court gave a relief to the plaint