Execution of Mortgage Decree – Scaling Down vis-à-vis Non-Agriculturist Co-Debtor – Section 47 & Order 21 Rule 2 CPC – Sections 7, 8, 14, 19 of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act – Appeal Allowed – Decree validly split: scaled down only for agriculturist defendants (D2–D7); non-agriculturist D1 remained liable for full decretal amount – Payments satisfying the scaled-down share cannot be treated as “full satisfaction” of the entire decree nor as exonerating D1 or the whole security – High Court’s contrary view erroneous [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14–15].

Executing Court’s Limits – Interpretation vs. Re-drafting – Section 47 CPC – Execution court must enforce the decree as drawn – It may construe but cannot rewrite by invoking “indivisibility” to confer indirect relief under the Act upon a non-agriculturist who was expressly denied such relief by the appellate decree [Paras 7–9].

Indivisibility of Mortgage – Special Statute Carve-out – General unity of mortgage/security yields where integrity is disrupted or where a special statute intervenes – The 1938 Act specifically authorizes scaling down “notwithstanding any … decree of court,” but confines the benefit to “agriculturists”; hence permissible to reduce liability only for agriculturists while keeping the decree intact against non-agriculturists [Paras 10–11].

Purchaser Cases Distinguished – Incidental Benefit to Purchaser ≠ Benefit to Co-Debtor – Authorities granting a non-agriculturist purchaser the incidental benefit of a scaled-down burden (as an incident of purchase) do not apply where the claimant is himself a mortgagor/judgment-debtor seeking to ride on his co-debtors’ relief – Present case involves no purchaser; ratio in those cases inapplicable [Paras 11–12].

Form and Implication of Decree – Reading as a Whole – Although the decree could have more clearly earmarked discharge of only agriculturists’ shares upon their payment, its plain implication (reinforced by execution-stage settlements and releases) is a split security and debt; therefore full satisfaction could not be entered on payments referable to agriculturists alone [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of the High Court set aside – Order of the District Judge restored – No order as to costs [Paras 14–15].

Appellate – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Improper Exercise of Discretion – The appellate court must itself “require” additional evidence due to an inherent lacuna preventing judgment; admission is not justified merely because a party later discovers documents – District Judge allowed extra evidence even before hearing the appeal and without identifying a lacuna – Held: reception contrary to Order 41 Rule 27; such evidence to be ignored [Paras 6–9].

Civil Appeal – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Section 100 CPC – Section 7, Punjab Act II of 1920 – Appeal Dismissed – High Court rightly set aside District Judge’s decree that rested on additional evidence improperly admitted; with property found non-ancestral, Section 7 barred challenge to alienation under custom; suit dismissed [Paras 6–12].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Findings Based on Illegally Admitted Evidence – Though factual findings are generally binding, a finding founded on additional evidence improperly received and ignoring glaring intrinsic defects is not conclusive in second appeal – High Court could disregard such evidence and interfere [Paras 9–10].

Customary Law – Proof of Ancestral Property – No Presumption – In absence of proof that the common ancestor owned the land which devolved by inheritance (particularly where other sons existed and records show only two sons in equal shares), no presumption of ancestrality arises – Plaintiff failed to prove Pattar Kalan lands were ancestral [Para 11].

Punjab Custom vs Statute – Section 7, Punjab Act II of 1920 – Bar to Challenge of Non-Ancestral Alienations – District Judge erred in decreeing even non-ancestral properties and in assuming a general prohibition on wills – Section 7 expressly bars contesting alienation of non-ancestral immovable property notwithstanding Section 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872 – Suit not maintainable once land held non-ancestral [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of the High Court restored; suit fails; costs against appellant in all courts [Para 12].

Specific Performance – Restitution under Section 65 Contract Act – Alternative relief on defendant’s plea – Appeal partly allowed – Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance rejected on concurrent findings that no concluded contract or part performance existed – Nevertheless, where defendants themselves pleaded receipt of Rs. 30,000 as a loan, Court can grant restitution despite no alternative pleading by plaintiff – Relief based on defendant’s own admissions causes no prejudice and avoids multiplicity of suits [Paras 5–9, 11–12].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Limited interference – Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence on pure facts absent exceptional circumstances – Findings that no contract existed and possession was not in part performance affirmed [Para 8].

Pleadings – Inconsistent/Alternative Relief – Permissibility – A plaintiff may rely on different and even inconsistent rights in the alternative – Though not pleaded here, Court may grant a decree on the case the defendant himself sets up (receipt of money), applying Section 65 – Privy Council followed [Para 9].

Interest – Possession and Tender – No interest payable while plaintiff was in possession; interest at 4% p.a. awarded from 01/09/1943 until realization – Alleged tender by hundi disputed and in any case not a valid tender in law on facts [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Specific performance refused – Money decree for Rs. 30,000 against second party defendants with 4% p.a. interest from 01/09/1943; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 11–12].

Specific Performance – Offer and Acceptance – Statement of minimum acceptable price – No concluded contract – Owner’s cable “won’t accept less than Rs. 10,000” held to be a mere statement of lowest price/invitation to offer and not a counter-offer – Plaintiff’s subsequent “confirmation” was only an offer requiring owner’s assent – No acceptance by owner established – Following Harvey v. Facey – Specific performance refused [Paras 11–12].

Telegraphic/Agent Communications – Role of intermediaries – Correspondence showed parties themselves treated plaintiff’s Rs. 10,000 as an offer awaiting owner’s approval – Agent’s cable “May I sell?” confirms absence of binding authority and non-completion of consensus ad idem – No evidence of bias or misdescription by agent Youngman; higher competing offer handled properly [Paras 6–7, 12–13].

Remedies – Damages/Compensation for breach – In the absence of a concluded contract, no breach could arise – Judicial Commissioner’s award of Rs. 3,000 compensation unsustainable – Suit dismissed [Para 14].

Appellate Route – Certificate under Section 109(c) CPC – Appeal by vendor alone; plaintiff filed no cross-appeal – Supreme Court set aside decree and dismissed suit [Paras 10, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Finding: no concluded contract on 14/08/1944 – Decree for compensation set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Mokarrari Tenancy – Doctrine of Merger – No Coalescence Between Leasehold and Proprietary Interests – Plaintiffs contended that the mokarrari (leasehold) interest of Bisheshwar Dayal Singh merged with his acquired lakhraj (proprietary) interest, thus extinguishing the lease and passing complete title to them through a certificate sale – Held: Merger requires unity of title and complete coalescence of leasehold and reversion in one person – Bisheshwar was only a co-owner of both interests and there was no extinction of lease – Doctrine of merger not applicable [Paras 9-10].

Tenancy Law – Inter Se Partition Among Lessees – No Effect on Relationship with Lessor – Alleged partition among mokarraridars did not sever the tenancy or create new tenancies – Held: Even after partition among tenants, the legal tenancy remains a single whole in relation to the landlord – Liability for rent remains joint – No fresh contract of lease pleaded or proved – No legal severance affecting lessor-lessee relationship [Para 10].

Certificate Sale – Limited to Lakhraj Interest – Mokarrari Not Included – Plaintiffs' acquisition through a certificate sale of the proprietary interest did not include the mokarrari interest – Mokarrari interest remained with the defendants’ first party under family partition – Sale passed only the interests jointly owned with the Pathaks – Held: Execution purchaser took only what the judgment-debtor could convey – No title to mokarrari passed to plaintiffs [Paras 6, 11].

Merger Doctrine – Requires Total Identity of Interest – Not Met – Bisheshwar Dayal Singh never held 100% in either the leasehold or reversion – Partial ownership of both does not lead to merger – Held: Mere overlapping ownership is insufficient – Complete unity in the same capacity is essential for merger to extinguish lease [Para 9].

Decision – No Merger – Mokarrari Interest Intact – Rent Suit Maintainable – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs' declaratory suit – Held: Defendants’ first party entitled to recover rent for 14-anna share as mokarraridars – Plaintiffs’ claim based on doctrine of merger rejected – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 IPC - Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – Section 417 CrPC – Supreme Court held that in an appeal against acquittal, appellate court must accord proper weight to trial court’s judgment and should not reverse findings unless compelling reasons exist – High Court erred in reversing a detailed and reasoned acquittal without adequately addressing Sessions Judge’s reasoning – Conviction set aside [Paras 4, 9].

Confession – Not Free or Voluntary – Section 164 CrPC – Rejected – The confession was made after alleged threats and inducements by police, including denial of food and sleep, and was recorded while the accused remained in police influence – Held: Confession was not free and voluntary and should have been excluded from consideration – Sessions Judge rightly ignored it – High Court erred in relying on it [Paras 1, 6].

Recovery of Ornaments – Section 114 Illustration (a), Evidence Act – Presumption Not Attracted – Ornaments allegedly belonging to the deceased were recovered five months after the incident – Supreme Court held that lapse of time weakened the evidentiary value of recovery – Prosecution failed to conclusively establish that ornaments belonged to deceased – No presumption of guilt permissible under Section 114 – Identification of ornaments was untrustworthy [Paras 7-8].

Circumstantial Evidence – Weak and Inconclusive – Acquittal Restored – Four primary circumstances considered by the trial court (alleged prior warning by accused, presence near scene, recovery of axe and cloth, and possession of ornaments) were all found unreliable or insufficient – Sessions Judge correctly concluded that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court affirmed acquittal [Paras 3-5].

Failure to Explain Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – High Court’s reasoning that accused failed to show ownership of ornaments was held erroneous – Held: Failure of accused to prove possession does not discharge prosecution’s burden to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption of innocence cannot be displaced by silence of accused [Para 9].

Decision – Conviction Reversed – Acquittal Restored – Appellant acquitted of charges under Section 302 and Section 404 IPC – Ornaments ordered to be returned – Supreme Court reaffirmed high standard of proof required in criminal cases, especially when reversing acquittal [Paras 9-10].

Contempt of Court – Failure to Comply with Release Order – Article 215 of the Constitution – Scope of Responsibility of District Magistrate – Negligence by Office Staff – Held Not Personally Guilty – The High Court found the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur guilty of contempt for delay in executing its order releasing a detenu and accepted his apology while discharging the rule – On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that though the delay of 8 days in executing the release order was serious and undermined public confidence in administration, the District Magistrate, who was away on tour and unaware of the order, could not be held personally guilty of contempt in absence of intention to disobey – Tender of apology cannot be equated with admission of guilt – Held: District Magistrate not personally guilty of contempt – Appeal dismissed subject to observation [Paras 2-7].

Will — Construction — Intention of testator paramount — Entire will to be read as a whole — Court may consider surrounding circumstances only to aid construction and not to add to dispositions — Held: Intention gathered from language of the will read holistically — Court must loyally carry out the will as properly construed and not supply omissions [Paras 9-12].

Multiple contingencies in will — Whether earlier dispositive provisions stand cancelled on happening of later contingency — Held: No — Paras 5, 6 and 7 containing provisions for wife, adoptive mother and two daughters, as well as provisions for debts and charities in paras 9 and 10, were meant to be operative under all adoption contingencies — Later paragraphs (11–16) modify only the share of the adopted son and do not abrogate paras 5–7 [Paras 12-14].

Kothangudi and Injigudi properties — Para 5 gives Nagammal life interest with remainder to Gnanambal and her children subject to Rs. 5,000 payment to Alamelu — Effect of para 13 stating that Kothangudi shall be enjoyed by Nagammal “as stated in para 5” — Held: Para 5 not altered or displaced — Para 13 is an affirmatory, not exclusionary, clause — The remainder to Gnanambal and her children and the Rs. 5,000 obligation subsist — Injigudi life interest likewise continues under para 5 [Paras 13-14].

Presumption against intestacy — Limited role — Not necessary to invoke where intention clear — If applicable, presumption would fortify the conclusion that no intestacy was intended regarding remainder in Kothangudi — Plain words cannot be rewritten merely to avoid intestacy [Paras 11, 15].

Disposition to adopted son — Scope of modification on adoption of nephew’s son — Under para 11, only certain properties shifted from adopted son to Gnanambal — No change to para 5 scheme — Thus remainders and life estates under para 5 remain operative despite adoption choice [Paras 14].

Decision — Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Decree of the Subordinate Judge restored — Appellant entitled to costs in all courts [Paras 16-17].

Taxation Law - Section 25(4) Income Tax Act - Relief – Date of “Succession in such capacity” – Executors carrying on business after death pending sale – Held: Succession occurs on death, not on later sale – The testator’s shipping agency business was directed by will to be continued by executors as a going concern for up to one year pending sale – Held that on death (09/04/1942) the estate including the business vested in the executors who, under Sections 3 & 10, became the assessees carrying on the business – This constitutes “succession in such capacity by another person” within Section 25(4); relief period thus ends on 09/04/1942, not 01/01/1943 [Paras 1, 3-6].

“In such capacity” – Ownership not decisive – Focus on person carrying on business as principal – The phrase “in such capacity” in Sections 25(4) & 26(2) refers to the capacity of carrying on the business as the predecessor did (as a person liable to tax on its profits), not necessarily as beneficial owner – Revenue fastens liability on the person in actual receipt and control; a change in that taxable person amounts to succession even if beneficial ownership remains with estate/beneficiaries [Paras 6, 10-13].

Executors as assessees – Sections 3 & 10 (read with 24B) – Distinction maintained – For profits after death, executors are assessees in their own right under Sections 3 & 10; for profits up to death, liability is as legal representatives under Section 24B limited to estate – Apportionment under Section 26(2) is meaningful notwithstanding same estate ultimately bearing tax [Paras 6, 13-14].

Relief scheme under Section 25(4) read with Section 26(2) – Object and scope – Section 25(4) relief extends to successions after commencement of the 1939 Amendment to offset double levy on 1921-22 income; the timing of succession governs the relief cut-off for predecessor—here, on death [Paras 4, 9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with costs – Succession held to have occurred on 09/04/1942; exemption confined to profits between 01/04/1942 and 08/04/1942 – Das, J. and Sastri, J. concur [Paras 6-7, 15-16].