# THE OOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. THE MYSORE SUGAR CO., LTD

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 976
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Case number:** Civil Appea.l No. 435 of 1961
- **Bench:** S. K. DA.s, A. K. Sa.Rka.R, M. lIJDA.YA.TULLAH, Ra.Ohuba.R Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-oommissioner-of-income-tax-v-the-mysore-sugar-co-ltd-2559
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Income Ta:i-Dduction-E:ipenditur• l>y way of inyeat""n
and e:ipendihtre in the courBe of b1Uinua-.Di.timtion-Tut1
applkAbk-IndW.n [nco,,,..Ta:t A.ct, 1922 (II of 1922), "· 1
(I), (2) (:ti), 2 (zv).
·
The assessee Company used to purchase sugarcane from
the sugarcane growers to prepare sugar in ill factory, in
which a very large percentage. of shares was owned by the
Government of Mysore. As a part of its business operation it
entered into written agreemen!J with the sugarcane growers
and advanced them seedlings, fertilizen, and also cash .. The
cane growers entered into these agreements known as "oppige"
by which they agreed to sell sugarcane exclusively to the
assessee company at current market rates and to have the
..
•
•
2 S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
971
advances adjusted toward• the price.
/\n account of each
"0ppigedar" was opened by the cony>any. .These agreements
wet e entered into for each crop.
'I.
In the year 1948-49 due to drought, the assessce company could not work its mills >!nd the "oppigedar" could not
grow or deliver the sugarcane and thus the advances made in
the year •emainded unrecovered. The Mysore Government
realising the hardship appointed a committee to investigate
the ma(ter and make a report. The Committee recommended
that the assessec company should ex·gratia forgo some of its
dues, arid in the year of account 'ending June 30, 1952, the
~
company waived its rights in. respect of Rs. 2,87 ,422/-. Ti)e
Company claimed 1this as a deduction under s. 10 (2) (xi)
and s. )0 (2) (xv) but the Income·Tax Officer declined to
jr make the deduction and the appeal before .the Appellate
.
Assistant Commissioner also failed. The Tribunal was also
of the opinion that these advances were made to ensure to
steady supply of quality surgarcane and the Joss, if any,' must
be taken to repr<scnt a capit11l loss and not a trading loss but
the tribunal referred the question ·thereby arising for the
decision of the High Court. The High Court relying upon a
decision ·of this Court· in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of
Income-tax held, that ~he expenditure was not in the nature
" of a capital expenditure, but was a _revenue expenditure and
'<
that this amount was deductible in computing the profits of
the business for the year in question under s. 10 (1) of the
Income· tax Act. ·
The central point for decision in the present case, was
whether the money which was given up, represe.nted a loss of
capital or must be treated as a revenue expenditure.
Helrl, thats. 10 (2) does not deal exhaustively with the
deductions which must be made to arrive at the true profits
~ and gains. It mentions certain dedutions. in els. (i) to (xiv)
.,
and if an expenditure comes within any of the emunerated
classes. of allowance the case has to be considered under
the appropriate class. Clause (xv) is a general clause. which
allows an expenditure . to be deducted, if I.aid out or expended
wholly anQ. exclusively for the purpose of such bu.sinCSs, which .
is not . in the nature of capital expenditure or personal
expenses of the assessee.
But. the general scheme of the
.section is that profits or gains must be calculated after dedu·
~ cting outgoings reasnnably attributable as business expcn\]iture
;'
but not so as to deduct any part of a capital expenditure.
To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital
account or on. revenue, one must consider the expenditure in
196!
Oommfssioner uj
Income-Ku
v •
• Vysore Sugar Co '
Ltd.
1!.6!
CommiaJionn of
Income-tu:
'"
fll)IOrt, .Suga, Co.,
Ltd.
Hidnyolul/•h J,
978
l:!Ul'HEME OOURT REPORTS (11163]
tclation to the business.
The questions to consider in this
connettion arc for what was the money laid out ? \Vas it to
acquire an asset of an enauring nature for the benefit of the
business, or was it an outgoing in the doing of business ?
lf money be lost in the first circumstance it is a Ion of capital. •
but it lost in the second circums1ance, it is a revenue loss.
In the first, it bears the character of an inv

## Text

198'
Arnarchand
Lalitkuma~
••
Shrtt tfmbica Ju't
M1ll4 l.1td.
DatJ.
1961
MoyJ.
976
SOPH.EME OOOR'l' REPORTS [1963)
mentioned, the contract would be deemed to be
cancelled which mE>ant that the contract was to be
treated as mm est for all purposes. If the contract was deemed to be oaooolled, it must mean
that the right and obligations of the parties came
to an end simultaneously. It was not really neceBsary to insert the words "with out any difference on
both sides" in the bought notes and such addition
in the sold notes did not make any difference to the
rightB of the parties.
For the reasons given above we hold that
there is no merit in any of the appeals. The
appeals are accordingly diam issed with costs ; one
hearing fee.
Appeals dismissed.
THE OOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
v.
THE MYSORE SUGAR CO., LTD.
(S. K. DA.s, A. K. SA.RKA.R, M. lIJDA.YA.TULLAH and
RA.OHUBA.R DAYAL, JJ.)
Income Ta:i-Dduction-E:ipenditur• l>y way of inyeat""n
and e:ipendihtre in the courBe of b1Uinua-.Di.timtion-Tut1
applkAbk-IndW.n [nco,,,..Ta:t A.ct, 1922 (II of 1922), "· 1
(I), (2) (:ti), 2 (zv).
·
The assessee Company used to purchase sugarcane from
the sugarcane growers to prepare sugar in ill factory, in
which a very large percentage. of shares was owned by the
Government of Mysore. As a part of its business operation it
entered into written agreemen!J with the sugarcane growers
and advanced them seedlings, fertilizen, and also cash .. The
cane growers entered into these agreements known as "oppige"
by which they agreed to sell sugarcane exclusively to the
assessee company at current market rates and to have the
..
•
•
2 S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
971
advances adjusted toward• the price.
/\n account of each
"0ppigedar" was opened by the cony>any. .These agreements
wet e entered into for each crop.
'I.
In the year 1948-49 due to drought, the assessce company could not work its mills >!nd the "oppigedar" could not
grow or deliver the sugarcane and thus the advances made in
the year •emainded unrecovered. The Mysore Government
realising the hardship appointed a committee to investigate
the ma(ter and make a report. The Committee recommended
that the assessec company should ex·gratia forgo some of its
dues, arid in the year of account 'ending June 30, 1952, the
~
company waived its rights in. respect of Rs. 2,87 ,422/-. Ti)e
Company claimed 1this as a deduction under s. 10 (2) (xi)
and s. )0 (2) (xv) but the Income·Tax Officer declined to
jr make the deduction and the appeal before .the Appellate
.
Assistant Commissioner also failed. The Tribunal was also
of the opinion that these advances were made to ensure to
steady supply of quality surgarcane and the Joss, if any,' must
be taken to repr<scnt a capit11l loss and not a trading loss but
the tribunal referred the question ·thereby arising for the
decision of the High Court. The High Court relying upon a
decision ·of this Court· in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of
Income-tax held, that ~he expenditure was not in the nature
" of a capital expenditure, but was a _revenue expenditure and
'<
that this amount was deductible in computing the profits of
the business for the year in question under s. 10 (1) of the
Income· tax Act. ·
The central point for decision in the present case, was
whether the money which was given up, represe.nted a loss of
capital or must be treated as a revenue expenditure.
Helrl, thats. 10 (2) does not deal exhaustively with the
deductions which must be made to arrive at the true profits
~ and gains. It mentions certain dedutions. in els. (i) to (xiv)
.,
and if an expenditure comes within any of the emunerated
classes. of allowance the case has to be considered under
the appropriate class. Clause (xv) is a general clause. which
allows an expenditure . to be deducted, if I.aid out or expended
wholly anQ. exclusively for the purpose of such bu.sinCSs, which .
is not . in the nature of capital expenditure or personal
expenses of the assessee.
But. the general scheme of the
.section is that profits or gains must be calculated after dedu·
~ cting outgoings reasnnably attributable as business expcn\]iture
;'
but not so as to deduct any part of a capital expenditure.
To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital
account or on. revenue, one must consider the expenditure in
196!
Oommfssioner uj
Income-Ku
v •
• Vysore Sugar Co '
Ltd.
1!.6!
CommiaJionn of
Income-tu:
'"
fll)IOrt, .Suga, Co.,
Ltd.
Hidnyolul/•h J,
978
l:!Ul'HEME OOURT REPORTS (11163]
tclation to the business.
The questions to consider in this
connettion arc for what was the money laid out ? \Vas it to
acquire an asset of an enauring nature for the benefit of the
business, or was it an outgoing in the doing of business ?
lf money be lost in the first circumstance it is a Ion of capital. •
but it lost in the second circums1ance, it is a revenue loss.
In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the
second, it bears the character of current cxperucs.
English Grown Spe!Ur Go. Ltd. v. Baker, ( 1908) 5 T. C.
327, Charle& Marsden &: Sons Ltd. v. The Gommissione,. of
In/a.nd R•V'nu<, ( (919) 12 T. C. 217 and Raid's Brewerg Go.
Ltd. v. Nale, (1891) 3 T. C. 273, applied.
Badrid<U
Dllfla v. Gommission.r of lnwme·taz (1959)
S. C. R. 690 and Gommiasi011er of Ineame·la% v. Chitnavi8,
(1932) L. R. 59 I. A. 290, referred to.
l.:
Held, in this case, there was hardly any el-.ment of
investment which contemplate more than payment of advance
price. The resulting loss to the assessee company was just as
much a loss on the revenue side as would have been, if it had
paid for the ready crop which was not delivered,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appea.l
No. 435 of 1961.
•
Appeal from the order dated September 7,
1959, of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore, in
Income-tax keferred case No. :l of 1955.
C. K. Daphtary, SolicitOT General of India,
N. D. Karkha11is,
R. H. Dhebar, and P. D. Merwn,
for the appellant.
A. V. VistDanatha Sastri and K. R. Chaudhuri,
for the respondent.
1962. May 3. The Judgment of the Court Wll.8
delivered by
•
HIDA.YA.TULLAII, J.-Tbis appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, on a certificate
granted under s. d6A of the Indian Income-tax Aot, *
is directed against a judgment of tile High Court
..
of Mysore dated September 7, 1959, by which the
v
j
•
(
2 rs.o.~.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
979
following question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, was answered in
favour of the respondent :
"Whether there are materials for the·
tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs .. 2,87 ,422/-
aforesaid represents a loss of capital.''
·Originally two question were referred, but
with the second question we are not now ooncerned.
The respondent is a limited liability Company ca.II·
ed the Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd., in which a very large
percentage of shares is owned by the Government
of Mysore. We shall refer to the respondent as
the assessee Company.
The assessee Company purchases
sugarcane
from the sugarcane growers, and orashes them in its
factory to prepare sugar. As a: part of its business
operations, it enters into agreement with the sugarcane growers, who are known loqally as "C>ppi,gedara"
and advances them sugarcane seedlings, fertilisers
and also cash. The O:jipigeJ/.JrB enter into a written
agreement called the "0ppi,ge'', by which they
agree to sell sugarcane exclullively to the assessee
Company at current market rates and to have the
advances adjusted towards the price of sugarcane,
agreeing to pay interest in the meantime. For this
purpose, an account of each Oppigedar is opened by
the assessee Company. A crop of sugarcane takes
a.bout 18 months to nature, and these agreements
take place at the harvest season each year, in preparation for the next crop.
-
In the year 1948-49 due to drought, the -as11essee Company could not work its sugar mill1 and
the Oppigedara could not grow or deliver the sugarcane.
The advances made in 1948-49 thus remained un·
recovered, because they could only be recovered by
the supply of sugarcane to the asse1&ee Company. The
MJsore GOvernment realising the hardship appointed
1962
Comm"usioner Of
Ir.come-tax
v.
MJ.10r1 Sugar Co.,
LJd.
HirloJatulloh J,
I
O,mmi11iMW of
lncomc-tox
v.
M.JSOft (~gar Co.,
/Jld.
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [11163)
a Committee to inve&tigaw the matter and to make a
report and recommendations. This report was made
by the Committee on July 27, 1950, and the whole
of the report hus been printed in the record of this
Cl!Be.
The Oppige bond is not
print~d, perhaps
because it was in Kaunada, but the substance of the
terms is given by the Committee and the above
description fairly represents its nature. The Committee recommended that the 1188c88ee Company
shoul:I ex gratia forego some of its dues, and in
the year of account ending June 30, I 952, the Company waived its rights in respect of Re. 2,87,422/·
The Company claimed this is'a deduction under
BB. 10 (3) (xi) and 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Incometax Aot.
The Income-tax Officer declined to make
the deduction, because, in hie opinion this was
neither a tradt> debt nor even a bad debt but an
ex gratia payment almost like a gift. An appeal
to the App!lllate A88istant CommiBBioner also failed.
Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
Bench, these two arguments were again raised, but
were rejected, the Tribunal holding that the payments were not with an eye to any commercial
profit and could not thus be said to have been made
out of commercial l'xpediency, so as to attract
e. 10 (2) (xv) of th!! Act. The Tribunal also held
that these were not bad debts, because they were
"advances, pure and simple, not arising out of sales"
and did not contribute to the profits of the business.
From the order of reference, it appears that the
Appellate Tribunal Wllll also of the opinion that
these advances were made to ensure a steady supply
of quality sugarcane, and that the loee, if any, must
be taken to represent a capital loee and not· a trading 1088.
The Appellate Tribunal, however, referred
the question for the opinion of the High Court, and
the High Court held that the expenditure was not
in the nature of a oapital expenditure, a.ud was
•
.1
•
I·
I
i
'(
2 S.C.lt. SUl'REMK COUlt'l' R.El'ORT8
981
deductible as a revenue expenditure. It relied upon
a passage from Sempath Ayyangar's Book on the
Indian Income·~x Law and on the decision of this
Court in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of · Incomet,ax (1), to hold that this amount was deductible in
computing the profits of the business for the year
in question under s. 10 (1) of the Inoome·tax Act.
· The case has been argued before us both
under s. 10 (1) and s. 10. (2) (xv), though it
appears that the case of the assesses Company
has changed from s. 10 (1)
to s. 10 (2) (xi)
and· s. 10 (2) (xvi) from time to' time. 'l'he
question,
as
propounded,
ll6ems
to
refer
ss. 10 (2) (xv) and 10(1) and not to s. 10 (2) (xi),
We, however, do not wish to · emphasise the
nature of the question posed, because, in our opin·
ion, the central point to decide is whether t'1e
money which was given up, represented a 1088 of
capital, or must be treated as a revenue expenditure.
·
The tax under the head. "Business" is payable under 11, 10 of the lnoome,tax Act; That section provides by sub-s, ( 1) that the tax shall be
payable by an aBBeBsee under the head "profits and
gains of business, etc." in respect of the profits or
gains of any busineliB, etc. carried on . by him.
Under sub-s'. (:1.), these profits or gains a.re oompu~
ted after making certain allowanoes. · Cle.use (xi)
allows deduction of bad and doubtful business
debts. It provides that 'l'Vhen the asseesee's accounts in respect of any part of his b~ees are not
kept on the cash basis, aooh sum, · in respect of
bad and doubtful debts, doe to the al!Se&see .in respect of that part of ·his business ia deductible but
not exceeding the amount actually written off as
irrecoverable in the books of the aaseseee. Clause
-{
(fj 11959) S. C. R. 690.
l 62
Commissionsr of
lncrJmt--1'"'
v.
M11.or6 Sogar Oo.,
Lid.
Hido,,.mllah J,
'
WmmieaJonn of
lmonu-lax
v.
M:1s011 Suga, Co.,
LU.
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS' [1963]
(xv) allows any expenditure not included in els.
(i) to (:xiv),
which is not in the nature of capital
expenditure or peraonal expenses of the assesaee, to
be deducted, if laid out or expended wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of such business, etc.
The clauses expressly provide what can be deducted; but the general scheme of the section is that
profits or gains must be oalculated after deducting
outgoings reasonably
attributable aa business
expenditure but so as not to deduct any portion of
an expenditure of a capital nature. If an expenditure comes within any of the enumerated classes
of allowances, the case oan be considered under the
appropriate olass; but there may be an expenditure
which, though not e:xaotly covered by any of the
enumerated olasses, may have to be considered in
finding out tho true assessable profits or gaine.
This was laid down by the Privy Council in Commi88ioner of lneome-tax v. Chitnavis (1) and has been
accepted by this Court. In other words, s. 10 (2)
does not deal exhaustively with the deductions,
which must be made to arrive at the true profits
and gains.
To find out whether an expenditure is on the
capital account or on revenue, one muat consider
the expenditure in relation to the business.
Since
all payments reduce capital in the ultimate analysis, one is apt to consider a loss as amounting to a
loss of capital. But this is not true of all loBBes,
because lo88e8 in the running of the business cannot be said to be of oaptial. The questions to
consider in thia oonneotion are: for that was the
money laid out?
Was it to acquire an a.seet of
an enduring nature for the benefit of the busineBS,
or Wl\S it an outgoing in the doing of the business?
If money be lost in the first circumstance, it is a
loss of capital, but if lost in the second circumstance, it is a revenue JOBS.
In the first, it bears the
11) (1932) LR. S9 I.A. 290.
,
• ,
•
I
;,
"
j
2 S.C.R.
SU:::'REME COURT Rl"PORTS
983
character of an investment, but in the second, to
,
use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the
- character of current expenses.
This distinction is odmirably brought out in
some English cases, which were cited at the Bar.
We shall refer only to three of them. In 'English
Crown Speller Oo. LW, v. Baker (1),
the English
Crown Spelter Co. carried on the business of zinc
smelting for whioh it required large quantities of
•blende'. To get supplies of blende, a new Company
ca.lied the Welsh Crown Spelter Comp&ny was
formed, which received assistance from the .l!lnglish
CQmpany in the shape of advances on loa.n. Later,
the English 'Company was required to write oft'
£ 38,000 odd.
The question arose whether the
advance could be so.id to an investment of capital,
because if they were, the EngliRh Company would
have no right to deduct the amount. If on the
other hand, it wa.s money employed for the business, it could be deducted. Bray, J. who consi<!lered
these questions, observed:
"If this were an ordinary business
· transa.ctron of a contrary by whioh the Welsh
Company were to deliver certain trend, it
may be at prices to be settled hereafter, and
tha.t this wa.s really nothing more than an
advance on a~count of the price of tha.t blend, there "would be a great deal to be said
ii;i favour of the Appellants ......... It is impossible to look upon this a.s a.n ordinary business
transaction of an advance against goods to
be delivered ..••••... I can come to no other
conclusion but that this was an investment
of oapita.l in the Welsh Company and was not
an ordinary trade transaction of an advance
age.inst goods ......... "
·
{I) (1908) 5 T.C. S27.
196t
Commissioner of
lncorru .. tax
v.
MyaOTeSug~r Co.,
Ltd.
H iia,atu/lah J.
I95r
C;mmis8/0tld' oJ
Jricomt•lox
. ..
Myso'• Sui., Co.,
LU.
HidaJ«uiloA J.
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [IOO:t]
The second case, Oharles MarBflon &: Sons.
Ltd v. The CommiBSionerB of Inland Revenue ( 1), is
under the Excess Profits Doty in England, and
the question a.rose in the following circumstances:
an Engli.l!h Company carried on the busineBB of
paper-ma.king. To arrange for supplit·s of wood
pulp, it entered into a.n agreement with a. Canadian
Company for supply of 3000 tons per year between
1917-1927.
The English Company made an advance of£. 30,000 against future deliveries to be
recouped at the rate of£. I per ton delivered. fhe
Canadian Company was to pa.y interest in the
meantime. Later, the importation of wood pulp
wa.s ~topped, a.nd the Canadian Company (appropriately called the Ha ! Ha.! Company) neither delivered the pulp nor returned the money.
Bowlatt,
J. held this to be a. capita.I expenditure not admissible as a deduction. He wa.s of opinion that the
payment was not an advance payment for goods.
observing that no one pays for goods ten yeari in
advance, a.nd that it was a. venture to establish
a source and money was adventured as capital.
'l he la.st case, to which we neod refer to
illustrate the distinction ma.de in each cases is
Reid's Brewery Co. Ltd v. Nale <'). The Brcw.,ry
Company there carried on, in addition to the business of a. brewery, a business of bankers and
money-lenders making loans and advances to their
customers. This helped the customers in pushing
sales of the product of the BrewP.ry
Comp~ny.
Certain eums had to be written off, and the amount
was held to be deductible. l'ollock, B, said:
"Of course, if it be capital invested, then
it comes within the express provision of the
Income Tax .Act, that no deduction is to be
made on that account";·
(I) (1919) I T.C. 217.
(l) 11891) 3 TC. 27•.
..
•
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
.
985
but held ~hat:
" .. ~ .... no person wlio is acquainted with
the ~abits of b11sines11 "oa.n doubt that this is
not capital invested. What it is, is this. It
is capital used bY the Appellants but _use.d
only in the sense that all money which is
laicl out by persons who are traders, whether
it be in the purchase of goods be they trad·
era along, whether it be in the purchase of
raw material be they manufacturers, o: in
the case of money lenders, be they
pawn·
brokers or money lenders, whether it be money
lent in the course of their trade, it is used
and it comes out of capital, but it is not an
investment in the ordinary sense of the word."
It was thus held to be a use of money in the
course of the Company's business, and not an
investment of capital at all,
These cases illustrate the distinction between
an expenditure by way of investment and an expenditure in the course of business, which we have
described as current expenditure. The .first may.
truly be regarded as on the ca:nital side but not
the second. ·Applying this test to this simple case,
it is quite obvious which it is. The amount was
an advanced against price ·or one crop. The
Oppigedars- were t;o get the assistance not as an
investment by the asaessee company in its agricul·
ture, but only as an advance payment of price.
The amount, so far as the assessee Company was
concerned, repreiiented · the current expenditure
towards the pilrchase of ~garcane, and it makes
n.o difference that the sugaroa.ne :thus purchased
was grown by tho · Oppigedara with the · seedliiigs,
fertiliser and ~oney taken on acoolillt from the
asaessee 9ompany. In
BO far as. the asseBBee
Compa.ny was oonoemed, it was doing no more
than making. a forward' arrangement for the next
, J98t
Commis~ioner of
lncom1-loN
••
MJsOf6 Sn.ear Ca.,
Lid. --
Hidqyolullah J.
"
1961
Commi•siontr of
J ntom~·kix
v.
JlylOf't SU?Gr Co.,
Ltd.
ll'ilaJ•lullah J.
J96t
Ma.13.
986
SUPREME OOURT REPOH.lS [1963)
year's orop and paying an amount in advance out
of the price, so that the growing of the crop may
not suffer due to want of funds in the hands of
the growers. There was hardly any element of
investment which contemplates more than payment
of advance price. The resulting loes to the ass~esee
Company was just as much a lose on the revenue
side as would have been, if it had paid for the
rP-ady crop which waa not delivered.
In our judgment, the decision of the High
Court is right.
The appeal fails, and is dismissed
with costs ..
.Appeal dismissed.
Dr. C. ANNACHl<~RIAM AND A~'OTHER
v.
ACHLJTHA MENON AND OTHER)
(A. K. SARKAR. K. SU"BBA
RAO and
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Mammal:l«Jtta~am Law-Karnaron-Power of delegaiicm
-Emnt-1/indudu right to manage property and du•ieB arising in connection with management o/ tarrrad-Marumakkattayam
Act. 1932 (Mad. 22 o/ 1933), •· 33.
A karnavan of a tarwad who was leaving for Bornes
where he had taken up a job, appointed one M, who was·
the second senior most anandravan, as his
mukthia,. by
executing a power of attorney, for the reason that the senior
most anandrat'an was av.·ay in Madras.
Tl e said mukthiar in
conjunction with other adult members of the tarwad sold
several properties of the ta,.,etid for discharge of debts of the
r
•
ta,.,iad, under the said power of attorney,
including the
~
property in suit.
;
The karnamn along with two minor members of the
tancad brought a 1uit for setting aoide registered assignment
...