Chenna Satyavathi and anr. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of West Godavari - Court Judgment
|Court||Chennai High Court|
|Case Number||Writ Petn. No. 429 of 1951|
|Judge||Rajamannar, C.J. and ;Venkatarama Ayyar, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1952Mad252; (1952)IMLJ41|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Article 31|
|Appellant||Chenna Satyavathi and anr.|
|Respondent||The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of West Godavari|
|Advocates:||T.S. Narasinga Rao and ;E. Balachandrudu, Advs.|
direct taxation - valid partnership - sections 2, 25a and 26a of income tax act, 1922, sections 4 and 30 of partnership act, 1932 and hindu law - whether there was valid partnership in respect of cloth business which could be registered under section 26a - fact that minor included in contract would not make partnership as between two adults invalid - minor may be deemed to have been admitted to benefits of partnership by two adults - under income tax law minor admitted to benefits of partnership becomes partner - held, there was valid partnership in respect of cloth business which could be registered under section 26a. - .....constitution, it is clear that making provision for the advancement and development of the harijan community is one of the avowed objects of the government, both of the states and of the union.2. it follows that making provision for housesites for the houseless section of the communitywould be a public purpose within the meaning ofart. 31 or the constitution. the application istherefore dismissed.
1. The petitioners attack the validity of the proposed acquisition of lands including lands of an extent of 95 cents belonging to them for the purpose of providing house sites for the Adi Andh-ras, of a village in West Godavari District. The only point pressed before us is that provision of house sites for Adi Andhras is not a public purpose within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution, because in effect the result of the acquisition is to transfer property belonging to a certain individual to certain other individuals. We do not agree with this contention. From several provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that making provision for the advancement and development of the Harijan community is one of the avowed objects of the Government, both of the States and of the Union.
2. It follows that making provision for housesites for the houseless section of the communitywould be a public purpose within the meaning ofArt. 31 or the Constitution. The application istherefore dismissed.