K. M. SUBBAIAH v. UNION OF INDIA — 1973 DIGILAW 168 (KAR)

VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendants 2 to 5 in O. S. No. 110 of 1970 on the file of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, has been preferred against the judgment and decree made therein. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated, are as follows: the appellants (defendants 2 to 5) are the children of one Capt. Subbaiah, 1st defendant in the suit and the 2nd respondent herein. They were the children by his first wife, Kamalamma, who died in the year 1960. The 6th defendant in the suit and the 3rd respondent herein is one Sharada, second wife of the said Capt. Subbaiah. Subbaiah's mother was one Sqerthamma, who died on 14-5-1857. The father of Subbaiah, one Ramakrishna Bhatta, was possessed of some joint family properties in a village called Gunjur near Bangalore. Ramakrishna Bhatta and his wife Seep thamma were stated to be versed in Astrology and had extensive practice in that profession. It is in evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants, that their income from this source was being kept at home and it had amounted to some lakhs. Seethamma, the mother of the 1st defendant and the grandmother of the appellants, is alleged to have been carrying on money lending business, on her own and in the name of her daughter-in-law, kamalamma, wife of Capt. Subbaiah. Subbaiah entered public service and was a surveyor from 1938 to 1941. From the year 1943 to 1945, he was an SDO in the Military Engineering Service on a salary of Rs. 250 per mensem. Between the years 1945 and 1948, he was unemployed. From 1948 to 1956. he was in the Armed Forces as a" Second Lieutenant and er. ded as Captain. Thereafter from 1956 he was a Divisional Engineer in the South Eastern Raiway. Between the years 1958 and 1961, he was unemployed. Thereafter he was in service up to 1963 as a Senior Resident engineer ir the National Building Construction Corporation on a salary of Rs. 1,000 per mensem. Sometime during his service as Divisional Engineer, south Eastern Railway, he was prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he was possessed of assets disproportionate te his known sources of income and that he had acquired suit properties in the names of his children, appellants here in. 1,000 per mensem. Sometime during his service as Divisional Engineer, south Eastern Railway, he was prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he was possessed of assets disproportionate te his known sources of income and that he had acquired suit properties in the names of his children, appellants here in. He was convicted by the Special Judge and the said conviction was affirmed by the High Court of Patna in Crl. App. No. 410 of 1863; but on appeal to the Supreme Court, he was acquitted by its judgment dated 28-4-1969. ( 3 ) THE properties concerned in this suit were purchased in the names of the appellants by sale-deeds dt. 5-8-1957, 9-8-1957 and 18-11-1957. The said sale deeds have been produced and marked as Ex. P. 34, Ex. P35 and Ex. P. 36. All these sale deeds were in favour of the appellants herein. The consideration that passed under the sale deeds was Rs. 27,000, Rs. 80,000, and Rs. 28,000 respectively. The entire consideration has been shown to have been paid by the first defendant Capt. Subbaiah, father of the appellants, except for a sum of Rs. 25,000, in regard to Ex. P36, which is shown, to have been paid by Kamalamma, mother of the appellants and wife of the first defendant. ( 4 ) WHEN the prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption act was pending, on 1-3-1960, the first defendant voluntarily filed income-tax returns for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 giving his status as karta of the Hindu Undivided Family of himself and his 3 sons and second wife Sharada. In the said returns, he has clearly referred to the suit properties as joint family properties. The Income-tax authorities thereupon took up investigation and ultimately called upon him to explain the source of funds amounting to Rs. 3,00,000 which he had invested on the said properties and other securities such as the National Savings Certificates, etc. In the course of the proceedings, he was represented by Chartered accountants by name Brahmayya and Co. It was stated by his Accountants that the properties were acquired out of the joint family funds, and some reliance was placed on, a photostat copy of the pronote executed by one Sripada Rao in favour of Kamalamma, the first wife of the first defendant. It was stated by his Accountants that the properties were acquired out of the joint family funds, and some reliance was placed on, a photostat copy of the pronote executed by one Sripada Rao in favour of Kamalamma, the first wife of the first defendant. When the proceedings were pending, the first defendant appeared before the Income-tax authorities along with his Auditors and made a statement that his parents had cash to the tune of lakhs as early as in, the year 1943 and that he had a safe locker in the Bank of Mysore between the years 1946 and 1958. The statement has been produced and marked as Ex. P48. According to him, his parents were Astrologers and that his wife had received cash and jewellery worth Rs. 30,000 from her parents at the time of the marriage and that they were carrying on money lending business at a high rate of interest. By this process they had accumulated cash to the tune of about Rs. 3,00,000 and the same had been kept in the aforesaid safe locker. It is also stated by him that one of his brothers, Narayana Sastry, had gone out of the family by virtue of a release in the year 1940 and had taken with him Rs. 30,000 at the time. His second brother krishnappa had been given all the properties of the family in the year 1940. His other brother Shamanna, examined as DW. 6 had received Rs. 40,000 in the year 1957 from his mother, Seethamma, just before her death. He has also stated that his mother was carrying on money lending transactions in the name of his wife, Kamalamma, and that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 had been advanced to one Sripada Rao on a pronote. This was how he had explained the sources of funds for the purchase of the properties and other investments. He had also stated that he had also earned money during his service in various capacities. ( 5 ) THE Income-tax Authorities ultimately assessed the first defendant capt. Subbaiah in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 for the years 1955-56 to 1959-60 on the basis of his own admission contained in a letter dt. 27-12-1962. He had also stated that he had also earned money during his service in various capacities. ( 5 ) THE Income-tax Authorities ultimately assessed the first defendant capt. Subbaiah in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 for the years 1955-56 to 1959-60 on the basis of his own admission contained in a letter dt. 27-12-1962. This assessment was clearly made on the basis of his returns as Karta of a hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself and three of the appellants and his second wife, the third respondent. ( 6 ) WHILE the position stood thus, the first defendant, acting as guardian of the appellants, applied for permission to sell the suit schedule properties in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Minority and" Guardianship act to the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in Mis. 97 of 1962. These proceedings later on stood transferred to the Court of the district Judge, Bangalore City, and the same stood registered as Mis. 293 of 1964. That Court granted the necessary permission to sell the properties in question. Accordingly the properties were sold on 4-2-1963, 12-9-1963 and 16-9-1963 and out of the realisations thereof, a sum of Rs. 1,51,981 was deposited in the Court of the District judge. By then, demands for the Income-tax dues for the years 1956-57 to 1961-62 had been raised and notice had been served on the first defendant as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family, on 29-12-1962. An application under 3. 226 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was accordingly filed on behalf of the Revenue before the District Judge on 7-10-1963 for the payment of Rs. 1,01,842-84 which had become due and payable on 7-10-63. Subsequently, another application was filed by the Income-tax Department on 2-1-1964 for payment of a furher sum of Rs. 20,373-44 representing the penalties levied on account of the non-payment of the tax. Subsequent thereto a further demand had been raised for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 and the family of the appellants was therefore liable to pay in all a sum of Rs. 1,51,023-20. In the course of the said proceedings, the first appellant herein got himself appointed as guardian to his minor brothers and sister and preferred objections opposing the application made by the income-tax Officer. 1,51,023-20. In the course of the said proceedings, the first appellant herein got himself appointed as guardian to his minor brothers and sister and preferred objections opposing the application made by the income-tax Officer. The learned District Judge rejected the prayer of the income-tax Department, but directed the retention of the money pending adjudication of the claim in a proper proceeding before the Civil Court, to be instituted by the Department. Aggrieved by this order, both the appellants and the department went up in revision before the High Court in CRP. 375 of 1864 and CRP. 532 of 1964 respectively. This Court dismissed the petitions and directed the retention of the money till 30-9-1967 and further directed that the Department might institute proper proceedings by then. This is how this suit has come to be filed by the Department in the name of the Union of India. ( 7 ) IT, is the case of the Union of India that the suit properties were joint family properies and therefore liable to be assessed on the joint family of the first defendant as a Hindu Undivided Family. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the properties shown in the schedule in the plaint belong to the Hindu Undivided Family of the defendants and the sale proceeds in deposit in the Court of the District Judge in Mis. 97 of 1962 were liable to be attached and recovered towards Income-tax arrears due by the Hindu Undivided Family. The suit was instituted on 28-9-1967. The statement of the first defendant Capt. Subbaiah was filed only on 17-1-1969. The statement of the second and the fourth defendants was filed on 2-2-1969. The third defendant has adopted the statement of defendants 2 and 4 by a Memo dated 7-2-1969. ( 8 ) THE defence of the first defendant, in substance, is that the sut properties were acquired by the personal funds of Seethamma and Kamalamma, mother and first wife of the first defendant respectively. According to him, that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was being handled by them exclusively and that the properties were acquired by Kamalamma at the express will and desire of Seethamma in the names of the appellants herein, by investing the said funds. According to him, that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was being handled by them exclusively and that the properties were acquired by Kamalamma at the express will and desire of Seethamma in the names of the appellants herein, by investing the said funds. He has explained that he was pursuaded to accept the assessment made on the Hindu Undivided Family as he was advised by the Income-tax authorities that certain concessions would flow from such returns, and also because of certain threats of criminal and other proceedings held out against him, on the ground that the said funds amounted to undisclosed income. The defence of defendants 2, 3 and 4 is that they have been living separately ever since the second marriage of their father Subbaiah in the year 1961 and consequently there has been a disruption of the joint family. It is also averred that they were unaware of the assessment proceedings and they were not therefore liable for the demands made on the Hindu Undivided Family. It is further contended that the suit properties were their absolute properties as their paternal grandmother Seethamma was practising Astrology and was also carrying on the business of buying and selling properties and on account of such dealings, she was in possession of a number of properties and cash. It is further stated that their mother Kamalamma was also possessing cash and jewellery worth several thousands of rupees and was doing money-lending business. This money together with a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 given by seethamma to their mother Kamalamma, with a direction that properties should by acquired in the names of the defendants, constituted the main, source of funds for the purchase of the suit properties in the name of the appellants. In these circumstances, the properties in question were clearly the absolute properties of the appellants and the first defendant had no manner of right in them. Therefore, the statement made by the first defendant before the Income-tax Authorities that they constitute joint family properties was not binding on them, and it was an, attempt on the part of the first defendant to claim a share or interest in them for himself. Therefore, the statement made by the first defendant before the Income-tax Authorities that they constitute joint family properties was not binding on them, and it was an, attempt on the part of the first defendant to claim a share or interest in them for himself. After trial, the Court below found that the plaintiff had satisfactorily established that the suit properties were joint famliy properties and that the same had been acquired out of the joint family funds belonging to the appellants and their father, the first defendant. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the appellants, Sri V. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel, contended as follows : the burden of showing that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties was exclusively on the plaintiff and the same had not been discharged satisfactorily. In this view, the question whether or not the defendants have established that the suit properties were acquired from separate funds. of their mother and paternal grandmother would become irrelevant. In any event, there is satisfactory evidence to show that the mother Kamalamma and the paternal grandmother Seethamma had sufficient funds of their own, acquired by their own exertion, arid, therefore, the consideration paid towards the purchase of the suit schedule properties, evidenced by the sale deeds Exs. P34 to 36, must be held to have come out of those funds. Further, assuming that the statements and returns furnished by the first defendant, as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family, amount to admissions, they would not be binding on the appellants as they were made in the interest of the first defendant himself and with an ulterior motive of acquiring an interrest for himself in the said properties. In this view, once these admissions are out of the way, there is no evidence worth the name which would tend to show that the suit properties were joint family properties of the appellants and their father. In support of the last contention, he relied on the decision of a division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nagayasami v. Kochadai, AIR. 1969 Mad. 329. ( 10 ) IN support of his ease, he also relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in Crl. App. In support of the last contention, he relied on the decision of a division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nagayasami v. Kochadai, AIR. 1969 Mad. 329. ( 10 ) IN support of his ease, he also relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in Crl. App. 196 of 1965, preferred by the first defendant against his conviction on a charge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption act, wherein there is a brief reference to a pronote and a receipt executed in favour of and by Kamalamma respectively. We shall now proceed to examine these contentions in the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff-Union of India the case as to joint family nature of the suit properties has been rested mainly on the Income-tax returns and statements made by and on behalf of the first defendant before several Income-tax Officers and the assessment orders made in that behalf. Dependence has also been placed on the recitals in three sale-deeds, exs. P34 to 36, wherein the major portion of the consideration for the sales concerned therein has been shown to have passed from the 1st defendant, the father of the appellants. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. They are all Income-tax Officers who had been concerned with the assessment to tax of the first defendant durring the relevant yars. They are PWs. 1 to ( 12 ) THEY have spoken to the various stages of enquiry and investigation made by them as also the orders of assessment made by them. All the returns furnished and statements made by the first defendant as also other persons examined during the enquiry, have also been spoken to by by them. They have further spoken to the part played by the Chartered accountants who appeared on behalf of the first defendant, as also the first defendant's conduct in that connection. All of them have denied a suggestion that they had induced the 1st defendant to furnish the returns in the status of Hindu Undivided Family by offering concessions or making threats of penal action for non-disclosure of income. All of them have denied a suggestion that they had induced the 1st defendant to furnish the returns in the status of Hindu Undivided Family by offering concessions or making threats of penal action for non-disclosure of income. They have further spoken to the contents of the returns in so far as they had a bearing on the joint family status of the first defendant and the appellants and the joint family nature of suit properties. They have also produced the certified copies of the sale deeds standing in the names of the appellants in so far as they appertain to the suit properties. We are, therefore, called upon to examine some of the relevant documents marked as Exhibits through pws. 1 to 3. ( 13 ) AT the outset, it may be remarked that, so far as this documentary evidence is concerned, on behalf of the appellants their genuineness was not seriously disputed. But what was contended is that the statements ana conduct of their father, the first defendant, which might lead to an inference that the suit properties were joint family properties of themselves and the first defendant, would not operate as an admission against their interests in such properties. The argument is that that conduct on the part of the first defendant was actuated by ulterior motives with a view to acquire an interest for himself in properties which otherwise exclusively belonged to the appellants. Ex. P2 is the tax return furnished by the 1st defendant in regard to the previous year ending on 31-3-1958 which pertains to the assessment year 1958-1959. It is dt. 1-3-1960. It is clear therefrom that the status of the assessee has been shown as Hindu Undivided Family. Ex. P3 is a statement by the Chartered Accountant of the 1st defendant showing the income from the suit properties. Ex. P4 is a letter by such Chartered accountant dt. 2-3-1960 forwarding the returns of the 1st defendant in the status of Hindu Undivided Family and intimating that the assessee's income from salary ought to be assessed in the status of an individual. Exs. P5 and P6 are returns and income statement for the previous year ending 31-3-1959, entries in which regarding the status, the names of members of the joint family and the income from properties are similar to exs. P2 and P3. Exs. P7 and P8 are important documents. Exs. P5 and P6 are returns and income statement for the previous year ending 31-3-1959, entries in which regarding the status, the names of members of the joint family and the income from properties are similar to exs. P2 and P3. Exs. P7 and P8 are important documents. ( 14 ) THEY are letters addressed to the Income-tax Officer by the first defendant himself on 9-8-1962 and 27-12-1962, clearly and unequivocally according his consent to the assessments on certain terms for years 1955-56 to 1959-60. It is relevant to set out Ex. P8 in full :" In continuation of the discussion I had with you along with my auditors, Messrs Brahmayya and Co. , Bangalore and as proposed by you, I hereby agree that I may be assessed on a total income of rs. 2,25,000 spread over equally to five years commencing from 31st march 1955 to 31st March 1959. I also agree for the levy of penalty at 25 per cent of the total tax. This supersedes the letter I gave on 9-8-1962. "exs. P10 to P18 are similar returns and statements furnished by the 1st defendant up to the previous year ending 31-3-1963. In all these cases, the first defendant has consistently maintained that he was the kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself and appellants 1 to 3 and the properties in suit were joint family properties. It is, therefore, clear that for over a period of several years the 1st defendant had not though fit to declare that the suit properties belonged to the appellants exclusively and not to the joint family of which he was admittedly the 'kartha'. In regard to the plea that he was induced by the authorities to make such returns and statements, and, therefore, they were the result of duress, he has stated in his evidence that the authorities had threatened him that a criminal case would be filed against him. This is clearly unsupported by any other evidence on record. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that a person in the position of the 1st defendant, who had served in various capacities as an officer in Military and Civil services would have easily succumbed to such threats. He has also nowhere in his letters or statements before the Tax Authorities hinted at such threats. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that a person in the position of the 1st defendant, who had served in various capacities as an officer in Military and Civil services would have easily succumbed to such threats. He has also nowhere in his letters or statements before the Tax Authorities hinted at such threats. Further-more, he was throughout acting with the active assistance and co-operation oi a recognised firm of Chartered Accountants. The Income-tax Officers examined in support of the plaintiffs' case have denied any such coercion or inducement. For all these reasons, we find no substance in this plea raised by the 1st defendant, intended clearly to support the case of the appellants. ( 15 ) WE now turn to the effect of these statements on the case of the appellants. The argument is that they would not bind the appellants as an admission as they were made, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of the 1st defendant himself, as by then, he had clearly intended to claim a share in such properties belonging to the appiellants exclusively and therefore, vitiated in the light of the enunciation relied on in Nagayaswamy's case (1 ). This contention has clearly no force. It is clear from Exs. P34 to P36, the sale (Seeds in respect of the suit properties, to which a reference has been made earlier, that an amount aggregating to Rs. 1,10,000 had been paid by the. 1st defendant himself in respect of those purchases and same has been found recorded by the Sub registrar at the time of their registration. This represented the entire consideration in regard to Exs. P34 and. P35 and a sum of Rs. 2,000 in respect of Ex. P36, the total consideration that passed therein being only Rs. 28,000. In regard to the balance of Rs. 25,000 in respect of Ex. P36, "it is stated that it was paid by Kamalamma, the wife of defendant 1 and the mother of the appellants. The sale deeds no doubt stand in the names of appellants. But the question is whether the entire amount paid as consideration for the said purchases, namely Rs. 1,35,000 was the property of Seethamma and Kamalamma or whether the sum of Rs. 25,000 at least could be considered as the property of Kamalamma. The sale deeds no doubt stand in the names of appellants. But the question is whether the entire amount paid as consideration for the said purchases, namely Rs. 1,35,000 was the property of Seethamma and Kamalamma or whether the sum of Rs. 25,000 at least could be considered as the property of Kamalamma. As regards the first part of this question, we will have occasion to deal with it later in the context of the evidence for the defendant. In regard to the second part relating to rs. 25,000 we have no hesitation in holding that the said money partakes of the same character as the other amounts, admittedly shown to have been paid by the 1st defendant. Moreover, in the context of the discussion hereafter, this amount could not also be held to have been that of seethamma or Kamalamma. ( 16 ) IT will be seen from Ex. P34 to Ex. P36 which are sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants, that all of them have been executed in a space of about 3 months, their dates of execution being 5-8-1957, 9-8-1957 and 18-11-1957 respectively. It is also to be seen from Ex. P36, the last deed, in regard to which Kamalamma had been shown to have paid Rs. 25,000, that the first defendant himself had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 as advance, and therefore it is reasonable to presume that he had negotiated for such purchase himself. It is also seen in the context of the later discussion, that the case of the appellants that all these purchases were made from the funds of their mother and paternal grandmother is clearly unacceptable. Viewed in the light of all these circumstances, we have no hesitation to conclude that the sum of Rs. 25,000 also must have come from the same source as the other amounts concerned with Exs. P34 and P35, namely the 1st defendant himself. Unless this position is rebutted by acceptable evidence adduced by the appellants, it must be held that the 1st defendant must have himself advanced the moneys for all the three purchases made under Exs. P34 to P36. P34 and P35, namely the 1st defendant himself. Unless this position is rebutted by acceptable evidence adduced by the appellants, it must be held that the 1st defendant must have himself advanced the moneys for all the three purchases made under Exs. P34 to P36. ( 17 ) IN the above view of the matter, the first defendant, to say the least, must be held to have had sufficient interest in the suit properties, even if it were possible to hold on this evidence that he was not the full and absolute owner of them. Therefore, in making the statements regarding the hindu Undivided Family status before the Income-tax authorities, he must be held to have really acted against his own interest, instead of having acted with the ulterior motive of carving out a share for himself from the properties of the appellants, as suggested. Indeed, in acting as he did it seems to us, the 1st defendant has parted with some of his own interest in the properties in question, in favour of his children, when they had no interest whatsoever in them, having regard to the circumstances in which the purchases had been made and also the passing of consideration under them. His version in regard to the moneys before the Income tax Authorities and also here is that they were moneys belonging to his parents. But inspite of it, he has agreed to the assessment as per Ex. P8. Moreover this part of his case almost coincides with that of the appellants, the evidence in regard to which we will have occasion to consider at a later stage. In the view we propose to take of it, it is reasonable to hold that the entire consideration for Ex. P34 to Ex. P36 passed from the 1st defendant himself. ( 18 ) IT is in the context of the above view, that the enunciation relied on, behalf of the appellants in Nagayaswamy's case (1) would not be of much assistance to the appellants. P34 to Ex. P36 passed from the 1st defendant himself. ( 18 ) IT is in the context of the above view, that the enunciation relied on, behalf of the appellants in Nagayaswamy's case (1) would not be of much assistance to the appellants. On the other hand, the said enunciation is a clear authority for a proposition that an admission of a 'kartha' of a joint hindu family would be binding on the other members of a coparcenary, in the absence of interestedness on the part of the 'kartha' himself, giving rise to an inference that he was attempting to acquire some property for himself at the expense of the other members of the family. Our earlier conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been that the first defendant has not been acting against the interests of the appellants. The latter proposition therefore goes clearly to support the case of the plaintiff and further reinforces our earlier conclusion that the plaintiff has satisfactorily discharged the burden placed on it by Issue-I framed in the case. We are not therefore, persuaded to agree with the first contention urged on behalf of the appellants. ( 19 ) THE relevant enunciation in Nagayaswamy's case (1), with which we respectfully agree is this :"in the case of joint family, the admissions of the father or admissions of the managing member would not by their own force bind the other members of the family and the admissions cannot be used against them on the ground that the managing member or the father as the case may be, did not satisfactorily account for these admissions. The junior members can always prove that the admissions are either untrue or incorrect. If the managing member or the father had made an admission while acting on behalf of the family or for acquiring properties for the family or for protecting the interests of the family and where, what he does is on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the family, the admission made in that representative character may be used as against all the members. But, if such an admission was made by the managing member or by the father to advance his own interests' and to acquire property for himself, and what he acquires would b'e his own acquisition which he is not bound to share with the other members or the sons, such an admission cannot bind the son. The position is a fortiori if such an admission advances not only the personal interests of the managing member or the father but also prejudicially affects the interests of the other members. " ( 20 ) IT seems to us that it is always open to the other members of a Hindu joint family, who would otherwise be bound by any such admission, to show that the properties were not in reality' joint family properties. It is exactly this that the appellants have attempted to do. Their case in substance is that their mother (Kamalamma) and paternal grandmother (Seethamma) had sufficient funds of their own and that Seethamma, when she died in March, 1957 left a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 in the hands of Kamalamma with specific instructions that, properties be purchased in the names of the appellants. It is further their case, which is also that of their father, defendant 1, that the said ladies were doing extensive business in money lending and buying and selling properties with the help of moneys earned by their paternal grand father and Seethamma by practising astrology and had kept by moneys amounting to some lakhs at home. It is also contended that Kamalamma herself had come by cash and jewellery amounting to Rs. 30,000 at the, time of her. marriage to defendant 1. Indeed, the version of the 1st defendant is that he had kept all these amounts, which according to him amounted to 3 to 4 lakhs, in a safe deposit locker in the Bank of Mysore from 1946-47 to 1958. In regard to the latter the only document produced is a certificate from the Bank of mysore, Ex. D2, which shows merely certain dates on which he had operated the safe deposit locker. The first and last of such dates are 10-10-1956 and 30-5-1958 respectively. This version before the Income-Tax Authorities cannot, therefore be accepted. ( 21 ) WE shall now proceed to consider the relevant evidence bearing on this theory of the defence. We shall first examine the documentary evidence. The first and last of such dates are 10-10-1956 and 30-5-1958 respectively. This version before the Income-Tax Authorities cannot, therefore be accepted. ( 21 ) WE shall now proceed to consider the relevant evidence bearing on this theory of the defence. We shall first examine the documentary evidence. It was in the context of the weight to be given to the above documents our attention was invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Crl. App. No. 196 of 1965, wherein the 1st defendant was the appellant. He had been convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,35,000 in addition to a term of imprisonment and the said conviction and sentence had been affirmed by the High Court of Patna, but the fine was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000. The Supreme Court, the judgment in which was rendered by Ramaswami, J. on 28-4-1969, acquitted the accused. The appellant therein had produced therein Exs. D6 to D8 and the same have been referred to in the said judgment. The contention now urged by Sri Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the appellants, is tantamount to asking us. to accept that finding as to the genuineness and validity of Exs. D6 to D8, as having certain persuasive value, if not as conclusively binding on us. We are unable to agree with this submission on the short ground that the principle of law bearing on such a question, is that such a judgment would be evidence, in a civil proceed- ding, only for showing that the accused was prosecuted for a certain offence or offences and that he was acquitted. The reasons in such a judgment would not. therefore, be binding in a civil case, where it is presumed evidence will have been adduced by both the parties specially bearing on the genuineness and validity of such documents. ( 22 ) WE shall now briefly consider these documents (Ex. D6 to Ex. D8) in the light of all the facts and circumstances on record, before briefly considering the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants. This concludes the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, and, as we have observed at appropriate stages, no weight can be given to this evidence. D6 to Ex. D8) in the light of all the facts and circumstances on record, before briefly considering the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants. This concludes the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, and, as we have observed at appropriate stages, no weight can be given to this evidence. The conclusion, therefore, is that the appellants have not established that the suit properties were their own and not that of the joint family of themselves and their father, the first defendant. As observed earlier, no other contention was urged. ( 23 ) AS a result of the above discussion we hold that the judgment in appeal is clearly right and must be sustained, although not exactly for the reasons set out by the lower Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout, including the lower Court. --- *** --- .