2020 (2) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, Court below) seeking to declare certain sale deeds, relating to suit schedule property, as benami; direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to transfer the suit schedule property in the name of the petitioner company; and to grant permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner company filed I.A.Nos.372 of 2019 to direct respondent No.3 to furnish certified copies of income tax returns of respondent No.2 for the period from 2006 to 2011 and I.A.No.373 of 2019 to direct respondent No.3 to furnish certified copy of statement of account of respondent No.2 being maintained with the State Bank of India for the perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he income tax returns and bank statements of respondent No.2 are produced before the Court below, the same would help the Court below in deciding the issue involved in the suit. On the above submissions, the learned counsel prays to set aside the orders of the Court below. In support of his argument, he relied on a decision of this Court in Pentakota Surya Appa Rao Vs. Pentakota Seethayamma 1976 (103) ITR 222.   5. Sri Ch.Shashibhushan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that there is no specific pleading in the plaint about the documents which are sought to be produced before the Court below and hence, the petitioner company cannot seek to produce the same later. He further submits that any information which disclo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case, the Court below ought to have allowed the said IAs and directed respondent No.3 to produce the said documents. Apart from the same, if the said documents are produced before the Court below, no prejudice would be caused to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. The judgment relied on by the Court below in Raju Sebastian's case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case under the pretext of infringement of privacy effecting Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the issue involved in the present case is whether respondent No.2 had the financial capacity to purchase the suit property. Therefore, to decide the said issue, it is essential to produce income tax returns and bank statement of account of respondent No....