HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Wealth Tax Officer, Calicut v. C. K. Mammed Kayi through Legal Representatives
Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 1971
[1981] 3 SCR 358 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: sections 3, 4 and 5(1)(ii) · General Clauses Act, 1897: section 13(2) · Mapilla Marumakkathayam Act, 1939: section 20(1) · Constitution of India: Article 14 and List I Entry 86
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. · V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. · E. S. Venkataramiah, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58
01 · Facts of the case
The deceased respondent was karnavan of an impartible Mappilla Marumakkathayam Tarwad. For 1957-58 the officer assessed the Tarwad as an individual; the Kerala High Court majority held that a non-Hindu family fell outside section 3 (SCR pp.358-363; PDF pp.1-6).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The answer came from the Act's scheme, not merely the broad constitutional entry. Under section 13(2), individual could include a plural natural group; separately naming an HUF did not make the expressions mutually exclusive. Sections 4 and 5 did not narrow the charging term, and tax legislation had historically treated Mappilla Tarwads as individuals (SCR pp.363-366; PDF pp.6-9).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that section 3 included the Tarwad, allowed Revenue's appeal and made no costs order (SCR p.366; PDF p.9).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on the assessable-unit issue; valuation or computation was not separately decided (SCR p.366; PDF p.9).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: construe the assessable unit from the charging provision, statutory scheme and interpretation rules. Express recognition of one family form does not necessarily exclude another natural group from a broader term (based on SCR pp.364-366; PDF pp.7-9).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 9-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 9-page count match catalogue asset 1981_3_358_366; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The ratio is tied to historical Wealth-tax Act wording and the former legal status of Mappilla Tarwads; current wealth and family law were not checked.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.