{"id":238986,"date":"1959-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959"},"modified":"2019-03-09T05:24:01","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T23:54:01","slug":"sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","title":{"rendered":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n
Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1959 Cal 697, 64 CWN 963, 1960 38 ITR 316 Cal<\/div>\n
Author: D Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: D Sinha<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 D.N. Sinha, J. <\/p>\n
 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: One Hulas Chand Rampuria also known as Bhanwarlal Rampuria was, until his death, the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two minor sons. He was a partner of the firm of Hazarimull Hiralal and held shares in two companies, namely, Rampuria Properties Ltd., and Rampuria Cotton Mills Ltd. The Hindu, undivided family, of which he was a karta, was assessed in the name of Hulas Chand Rampuria H. U. F. upto the assessment year 1942-43. The said Bhanwarlal Rampuria died sometime in the year 1947 leaving him surviving his widow Sushila Devi Rampuria and two minor sons. The assessments for the assessment years 1943-44 to 1947-48 were made in the name of ‘Sushila Debi Rampuria for self and as natural guardian of her minor children. Since the assessment year 1948-49, the assessment had been made in the name of ‘Sushila Debi Rampuria representing H. U. F. known as Hulas Chand Rampuria’. All the returns were made on the footing of a Hindu undivided family. In respect of the assessments for the years 1948-49 to 1951-52, similar assessments were made. The assessments under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 were also made in the name of ‘Sushila Devi Rampuria representing the said Hindu undivided family’ on the basis of returns filed by her and showing the status as that of a Hindu undivided family.\n<\/p>\n
 2. In respect of the assessment year 1951-52, the Income Tax Officer District (II), Calcutta issued a notice dated the 12th March, 1952 under Sections 22(2) and 38 of the said Act. The notice was received by the petitioner on 18th March, 1952. Somehow or other nothing was done until 16th February, 1955 when the Income Tax Officer sent a reminder stating that in default of compliance with the said notice, the assessment would be completed under Section 23(4) of the said Act. On the 28th March, 1955 the petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1951-52. This return was made by the petitioner describing herself as the legal representative of Bhanwar Lal Rampuria, deceased. On 7th February, 1956 the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22(4) of the said Act. The notice was addressed to “Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria representing the H. U. F. M\/S. Hulas Chand Rampuria, 1948, Cotton Street, Calcutta”, asking for production of accounts and documents etc. On the 10th February, 11956 the petitioner asked for time for a fortnight for production of the books. The petition was made by “Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria representing the H. U. F. of 5B, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta”. An order of assessment was made on 31st March. 1958. A copy of this order is Ex. “E” to the petition. This assessment order is for the assessment year 1951-52. The name of the asses-see is “Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria representing the H. U. F. Bhanwar Lal Rampuria, C\/o Messrs. Hazarimull Rampuria, 148, Cotton Street, Calcutta”. The status of the assessee has been described as “H. U. F.” On 18th April, 1956 the petitioner made an application under Section 35 of the said Act for rectification of the assessment order stating that certain dividends were included twice, In this petition, the petitioner described herself as “Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria representing the H. U. F. left by Bhanwa’r Lal Rampuria (deceased) of 5B, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta.” In fact, the assessment order was rectified. On April 19, 1956 the petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No ground was taken to the effect that the petitioner, could not represent the Hindu undivided family or that the assessment was made in the wrong name. On 10th May 1957 the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. On 6th June, 1957 the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9. On 21st August, 1957 the petitioner’s objection was rejected. On 2lst September, 1957 the petitioner appealed against the order of rejection, to the Commissioner, Presidency Division. By an order dated 26th September, 1957 the Commissioner, Presidency Division, dismissed the appeal. On 30th May, 1958 the assessment was revised under Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax. Act. The revised assessment is Ex. “I” to the petition. On the 4th October, 1958 the petitioner was served with a warning notice by the certificate Officer that unless the amount of the certificate was paid, distress warrant will be issued. The petitioner thereupon objected and has now come up to this Court. The point made by Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the assessment order for 1950-51 is entirely wrong, because Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria, a Hindu lady could not possibly represent the Hindu undivided family of Bhanwar Lal Rampuria. The first criticism of this belated plea is that of inordinate delay. From the dates mentioned above, it will appear that throughout the period from the assessment year 1943-44, the petitioner Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria, has been representing the Hindu undivided family which, after the death of her husband Hulaschand alias Bhanwar Lal, consisted of herself and her two minor children. For all these years, right upto the assessment year 1951-52 she filed returns in that fashion, either for self and as natural guardian of her minor sons, as representing the Hindu undivided family, or simply as representing the H. U. F., Bhanwar Lal Rampuria. She filed returns, made application under Section 35 of the I. T. Act, preferred appeals and was assessed also in that fashion and at no time put forward the objection that she did not represent the H. U. F. or that the proceedings were being taken in the wrong name. Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that he fully realises this. His argument is that the lady-was wrongly advised, and assuming that she never took the point before, she cannot be precluded from taking the point now, inasmuch as, the point is purely one of law. Either the lady can represent the Hindu undivided family or she cannot If she cannot, then simply because no objection was made an assessment cannot be made under the I. T. Act which is not permitted by the provisions of that Act. In short, he argues, that the assessment of income tax must be made within the four corners of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself, and if the assessment made is not warranted by the provisions of the Act. It must be held to be void, objection or no objection. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification of the preliminary objection. It is quite true that the assessment under the I. T. Act can only be made according to the provisions contained therein. But, when a person comes to a Court of equity, then the question of delay and acquiescence are pertinent. It is not that the assessment is good if it is violative of the provisions of the Act. But the Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the applicant and grant her any relief in an application under article 226 of the Constitution. However, for the purpose of this Application it is better to deal with the legal points raised, and to decide the position in law, <\/p>\n
 3. Under Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the said Act, “person” includes a Hindu undivided family. Section 3 of the said Act, which is the charging section, speaks of income-tax being charged in respect of the total income of the previous year of, amongst others, every individual or Hindu undivided family. In the prescribed form of return of income tax, being form ‘A’, there are appropriate parts to be filled up in the case of returns made by or in the case of, Hindu undivided families.    At the bottom of the return it is necessary to make a declaration by the assessee.       There    are notes appended to the form, stating how declarations shall be signed.    Note 2 states that the declaration shall be signed,    in the case of a Hindu undivided  family,   by the   “manager   or karta.”     I might  mention   here  that   the   rules   made     under Section 59 of the Act and published in the official Gazette have effect,  as if enacted in the Act, that is to say, form a part of it.    It, therefore, appears that the point is in a small compass and the question is whether  a   Hindu female  can  file   a return or be assessed as a manager representing a Hindu undivided   family   for   purpose  of   assessment     of Income tax,     Mr.  Mitra  argues  that in  law,  Or at least the law as it was at the relevant time a Hindu female was not a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and could not act as the Karta or manager thereof.    Hence, it was not possible for    a Hindu female to represent a Hindu joint family, either as a manager or in her personal capacity or as natural guardian of her  minor sons.    The   first  case  cited is Radha Animal v. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras . In that case, one V. M. N. Mudaliar   carried   on   business  inter   alia   in   hand-loom   cloth   and   piecegoods.     In   respect      of   his business, he was assessed as the karta of an undivided   Hindu   family,  upto      the   assessment     year 1941-42.    In 1942,  he died leaving six minor sons and a widow.    During the assessment years   1942-43,  and   1943-44,  the  income was  assessed on the basis of the income of an undivided Hindu family represented   by the   widow   Radha   Ammal.     During   the   accounting   year  1944-45,   the   widow   entered into a partnership in respect of the handloom business with  one Arumugha Mudaliar.    This deed of  partnership   was  presented   for   registration   before the Income Tax authorities under Section 26-A of the  Act.    The  registration  was refused by    the income tax officer and   the point was     referred  to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the said Act, as to whether this rejection could be  supported in law.    As the  six sons  were minors,  the mother as the natural guardian could not of course enter into a partnership with  a stranger  on behalf of the minors.    It was  alleged however that  the     widow had   entered  into  the partnership   as   the  karta  of the Hindu undivided family.    It was  claimed  that by reason  of the  Hindu Women’s  Rights  to   Property Act (XVIII (18) of 1937) a widow of a deceased coparcener   acquired   the   same interest   as   her husband,  and she was  entitled to  act as  the karta of  the   Hindu undivided   family.     It   was held  by the Division Bench that female members of a Hindu undivided  family can   not  be  co-parceners, though they may be  members  of a joint family. It  was held  that under  the   Hindu   Law, a   female  could not  become karta   or manager,   and  therefore  the registration  of the deed of partnership was rightly rejected.      The   learned   Judges   differed      with   a Bench  decision of  the   Nagpur  High Court,   Commissioner of Income Tax v. Laxmi Narayan Raghunath Das,  AIR  1949 Nag   128.    The  facts of that case were as follows:    One  Radhawallabh   died in 1943.     He had   been   carrying   on a   business     in partnership with his three brothers.     Radhawallabh left him  surviving his widow Kesar Bai     and two minor sons, who were all members of a Hindu joint family.    After the death of her husband the widow entered into a fresh agreement of partnership with the  three  surviving brothers.    The   deed  of  partnership   was  submitted  for  registration  under   the said Act and there was a reference under    Section 66(1) on the question as to whether on the facts of the case the widow was competent to enter into a contract of partnership in her representative capacity as karta of an undivided Hindu family consisting of herself and her two minor sons. A Division Bench decided that she could. The learned Judges stated that under the Mitakshara Law it was true that no female could be a co-parcener with a male co-parcener, presumably because she did not possess the right to take by survivorship. It was held however that this right or the status of a co-parcener was not a sine qua non of competency to become a manager of a Hindu Joint family. The learned Judges notice that so far as the Nagpur High Court was concerned, all the judicial authorities were of the same opinion. Reference was made to Kesheo Bharati v. Jaganath, AIR 1926 Nag 8I (FB), where it was held that any adult member of a joint family, male or female, was entitled to become, manager of a joint Hindu family. In Pandurang Vithoba v. Pandurang Ram-chandra, AIR 1947 Nag 178 it was held that a mother could be the manager of a Hindu joint family.\n<\/p>\n
 4. It will be observed that in these two cases there  was  a  sharp  difference  of   opinion.     In  the Nagpur case, it was held that the exclusion of females from the right to act as a karta or manager of a Hindu joint family was archaic and need not be   followed,   whereas   in   the   Madras   case it  was held that the Hindu Law on the subject must    be followed   strictly   until   there   was   legislation,   and that it was not permissible to import our own ideas of  what the  law  should  be.     Reference  has been made before me to an earlier decision of the Madras High Court, Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba   v.   Kamakshi Bayi Saiba. 3 Mad H. C. R. 424.   In that case, we find that the senior widow was given the right to  manage and   control property  of  the   Raja      of Tanjore who  left him  surviving   13  wives  but  no children.     Coming  to  the Orissa   High Court    we find that in a Division Bench case, Mugimi Padhano   v.   Lokananidhi Lingaraj,   (S)  AIR   1956   Orissa 1 the view of the Madras High Court was followed. It was held that it was opposed to the    fundamental principles  of Hindu Law that a person who is not a co-parcener though a member of a joint family, for example the mother, should be capable    of being a karta of a joint Hindu family.    As a matter of fact, in this case the sharp conflict between the   Madras  and   Nagpur  views   was   noticed,   and the  learned  Judges   decided  to follow the  Madras view.     In that case,  Sarathi Padhano died  leaving a widow and a son and two  daughters.    The son went  to  Burma and the  mother,  in  fact managed the family affairs for 25 years, maintaining the two daughters  and celebrating     their     marriages.     For these purposes she alienated the only piece of joint family property.   It was held that the mother could not act as  a  manager  and the  alienation  was  not binding on the son.    The learned Judges however stated  that  the   instant case  before  them  was     in respect of a son who had attained majority   at the time of his father’s death.    They were of the opinion that the decision might have been different if the mother had only a minor son, of whom she was the natural guardian.    In Commissioner of Income Tax C. P.  and U.  P. Lucknow v.  Sarwan Kumar  it was held that there can be a Hindu undivided family consisting of females only. It was however conceded that a female cannot be a co-parcener.\n<\/p>\n
 5. It will be observed that in all these cases the question was whether a female could be a ‘coparcener’ in a Hindu undivided family or whether she could be a karta or manager thereof in accordance with the notions and tenets of the Hindu Law. The question before  me in this  application  how-ever, is not whether upon the death of a co-parcener a Hindu undivided family leaving a widow and minor children, the widow can act as the karta or manager of the Hindu undivided family, but whether she could represent a Hindu undivided  family  as  a manager  thereof, for the purposes  of  the assessment  of the  Hindu  undivided family  to  income tax     It would be recollected that even in the Madras case,   (Supra) the undivided  Hindu   family  was  assessed for   the   years 1942-43 and 1943-44 as represented by the widow Radha Ammal.    This  was  noticed by the  learned Judges, but it was not held that this was irregular. In the Orissa case, it was expressly stated that the matter might be different if the female concerned was a natural guardian of her minor children.    In a Privy Council case, Kalyanji Vithal Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, 64 Ind App 28: (AIR 1937 PC 36), a question arose as to what was the meaning of the words “Hindu undivided family”, for purposes of the Income Tax Act.    It was held that if the income belonged jointly to the assesses, his wife and daughter then it would be the income of the Hindu joint family, and the phrase ‘Hindu undivided family” in the     said Act     was  a  wider phrase and should not be treated as equivalent to a “Hindu co-parcenary”.    It was further   held   that in a Hindu undivided family as recognised by the Indian Income Tax Act,  a female can be a member.    The judicial  committee  expressly  stated  that they did not agree with the notion    that a Hindu joint family necessarily consisted of male members only.    The result of these  decisions may  be  summed up as follows:    According to the Privy Council, the notion of a “Hindu undivided family”    and that of a “Hindu co-parcenary” should  not  be   mixed up together for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act.   Under the said Act, it is the Hindu undivided family which forms a unit     of    assessment.   According to   the Madras   and   Orissa  view, a  female,  not being  a  co-parcener,   cannot  act  as a  karta or  manager  of a   Hindu joint  family.   According  to   the   Nagpur  view,   she   can.   According to the Allahabad view, there can be a Hindu joint family   consisting  of  females   only.   In  my  opinion there is  really no conflict between these  views  so far   as   this   case   is   concerned.   To   start   with,   it cannot be  denied that a Hindu female  cannot be a co-parcener under the Hindu Law.  But,  for the purpose   of  the   Indian   Income  Tax   Act,  we   are not concerned with the Hindu co-parcenary, as has been   clearly pointed out by  the  Judicial  Committee. What we are concerned with is a Hindu undivided family.   A  female can  be a member  of  a Hindu  undivided   family,   which   may  even  consist entirely   of   females.   Where,   however,  the   male members are all minors, and of whom  the natural guardian  is their     mother, I  find,   nothing  in  the Indian Income Tax Act to prevent her from representing a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of assessment under the said  Act. In such a case, we should not confuse the term “manager” as used for purposes  of the Act with the term  “karta”  as used in Hindu Law. The word, “karta” is a technical term of the Hindu Law. Only a male co-parcener can be a karta. But, where in a Hindu undivided family there exists no karta, or where the male members are all minors, and there is no one who can act as karta,  or where there  are no males  at all,  there  seems to  be   no  legal  bar  to  a  female acting as   a   manager representing   a   Hindu   undivided family for purposes of assessment of Income Tax.  As  I have pointed  out in  the  Madras decision itself, the fact was that for several years the widow mother Radha Ammal represented the Hindu undivided family consisting of herself and her minor sons for purposes of assessment under the said Act. All that the learned Judges said was that she could not enter into a partnership with outsiders as a ‘karta’ of a Hindu undivided family. This involved the technical notion of a “karta”, because only such a person could enter into contracts of partnership with outsiders, such as would be binding on minor members of the joint family. As I have said, the unit of assessment under the said Act is the Hindu’ undivided family of which a female can be a member. When it comes to the assessment of income tax of such a unit, which consists of the mother and her minor sons, it is plain that the mother alone would be the person who could represent the minors, as their natural guardian, and I see no objection to her representing the Hindu undivided family as a manager. As I have stated above, this does not make her technically a “karta” of the joint family or even a coparcener.\n<\/p>\n
 6. That being the position, it is scarcely necessary to deal with the preliminary point of delay or acquiescence, but I shall deal with the point briefly, Mr. Mitra is right when he says that the Indian Income Tax Act is a Code in itself and if it is found that the assessment has been made in a manner not warranted by the provisions of the Act, then the assessment cannot stand. But, in an application under Article 226, that is not the sole consideration. The point to be considered is whether the Court, dealing with such an application, being a court of equity, should intervene or not. Where there has been delay or acquiescence, the Court may refuse to intervene, irrespective of the fact as to whether the assessment was valid or not. If the assessment is invalid, such an action on the part of the Court does not make it valid. But an equity Court is not bound to intervene if there has been delay or acquiescence, but will leave the parties to their ordinary legal remedies if any. In this case, the delay and acquiescence has been remarkable. For a large number of years, the petitioner has been representing a Hindu undivided family consisting of herself and her two minor sons for the purpose of assessment of income tax. In that capacity, she not only filed returns but did all kinds of things like preferring appeals, making application under Section 35 and various other acts mentioned above. She even filed a disclosure statement. It is after all these years that this plea of incapacity on her part has been taken before me for the first time. In the appeals in respect of the very order of assessment under question, no such point was taken. It is also firmly established that the question of jurisdiction should have been taken at the earliest stage.\n<\/p>\n
 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no reason has been established for interference by this Court, and that this application should be dismissed. The Rule should be discharged. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 Equivalent citations: AIR 1959 Cal 697, 64 CWN 963, 1960 38 ITR 316 Cal Author: D Sinha Bench: D Sinha ORDER D.N. Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: One Hulas Chand Rampuria […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\"},\"wordCount\":3813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\",\"name\":\"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959","datePublished":"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959"},"wordCount":3813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959","name":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T23:54:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sm-sushila-devi-rampuria-vs-income-tax-officer-and-anr-on-11-june-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}