Special Leave Petition Civil No 1557 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 1 2 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No 114 of 1976
Soli J Sorabji Solicitor General and Miss A Subhashini for the petitioner
ST Desai K J John and A K Verma for the Respondent
The order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J We regard the single point persuasively presented by the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the petitioner The Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh as deserving of a speaking order although in dissent since the question may arise again and needs to be silenced
873 Briefly the facts
Four brothers members of a coparcenery partitioned their family properties leaving in common a large house in the occupation of their mother
The eldest who is respondent before us sold his own house at a price sufficient to attract handsome capital gains tax but he pre empted the demand for tax by acquiring the common house from his three brothers who executed three release  deeds for a consideration of Rs 30000 each adjusted towards the extra share Jeshtabhaga agreed to be given to the eldest by the next three
It is common ground that if these release deeds did  amount to purchase of the house section 541 of the Income Tax Act 1961 would save the respondent from exigibility to tax
So the short question neatly identified by the learned Solicitor General is whether release deeds by sharers in favour of one of them whereby the joint ownership of all became separate ownership of one amount to purchase of house property within the meaning of section 541 of the Act
The High Court has held it is and we concur
Undoubtedly each  release in these circumstances is a transfer of the releaser s share for consideration to the release
In plain English the transferee purchases the share of each of his brothers
It is for a price of i Rs 30000 each
Had this been taken from non fraternal owners of shares or from one stranger owner plain spoken people would have called it a purchase
Why then should legalist be allowed to play this linguistic distortion
The reason supposedly supported by an English decision is that purchase primarily means acquisition for money paid not adjusted Upjohn J in Habshaw Brothers Ltd vs Mayer has circumspectly said  There are no doubt to be found authorities and statutes which have extended that meaning
In Mr T Cyprian Williams book the Contract of Sale of Land at p 3 he says  sale  in the strict and primary sense of the word means  an agreement for the conveyance of property for a price in money but the word sale  may be used in law in a wider sense and so applied to the conveyance of land for a price consisting wholly or partly of money s worth other than the conveyance of some other land Apparently he considered that a sale for something other than money can in a wider sense be properly described as a sale
We agree
The signification of a word of plural semantic shades may in a given text depend on the pressure of the context or other indicia
Absent such compelling mutation of sense the speech of the lay is also the language of the law
874 We find no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of the word purchase  as buying for a price or equivalent of price by payment ill kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from the legal meaning of that word in Sec
54 1
If you sell your house and make a profit pay Caesar what is due to him
But if you buy or build another subject to the conditions of Sec
541 you are exempt
The purpose is plain the symmetry is simple the language is plain
Why mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism
We see no stress in the section on cash and carry 
The point pressed must therefore be negatived
We have declined lo hear Sri section T Desai s artillery fire although he was armed cap a pie with Mitakshara lore and law
A point of suffocating scholarship sometimes arrives in court when one nostaligically remembers the escapist verse Where ignorance is bliss Tis folly to be wise Amen  A passing reference to avoidance and evasion of tax was made at the bar a dubious refinement of a dated legal culture sanctified though by judicial dicta
The court is not the mint of virtue and one day in our Welfare State geared to Social Justice this clever concept of avoidance  against evasion  may have to be exposed
Enough unto the day is the evil thereof
NKA Petition dismissed


Summary:
The respondent sold his house at a price sufficient to attract capital gins but he pre empted the demand of tax by acquiring the common house from his brothers for a consideration of Rs 30000 each through separate release deeds
On behalf of the Petitioner it was contended that release deeds by sharers in favour of one of them amounts to purchase within the meaning of section 54 1 of the Act
The High Court having held it is the Revenue came by way of Special Leave
Dismissing the Petition  HELD Each release is a transfer of the releaser s share for consideration to the release
In plain English the transferee purchases the share of each of his brothers for a price
Had this been taken from non fraternal owners of shares or from one stranger owner plain spoken people would have called it a purchase
The reason is supported by decision in Hobshaw Brothers Ltd vs Mayer 19563 AER 833 and 835 that purchase primarily means acquisition for money paid not adjusted
There is no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of the word purchase  as buying for price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from the legal meaning of that word in section 541 of the Act
873 B D