Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + SC FEMA - 1997 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (11) TMI 100 - SC - FEMAWhether the provisions of the SAFEMA apply to the sale transaction entered into between the widow of Talab Haji Hussein, COFEPOSA detenu and the purchaser, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants? Whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice? Whether the forfeiture of purchaser's flat in Dharam Jyoti Building by the authorities can be treated as double forfeiture on the basis of the same tainted money of the COFEPOSA convict only because the subsequent property purchased by the purchaser's vendor in Shivasthan Co-operative Society has also been forfeited to the Government under the SAFEMA? Whether the transaction in favour of the purchaser could be cleared on principles analogous to section 9 of the SAFEMA by imposing fine in lieu of forfeiture on the peculiar facts of this case? Held that:- The transaction of purchase by the appellants' predecessor Tayab Ali was also hit by section 11 of the SAFEMA. Consequently, in 1981, when the purchaser purchased this property from Tahira Sultana, she had no interest in the said flat which she could convey to the appellants' predecessor. In substance, it amounted to selling of the Central Government's property by a total stranger in favour of the purchaser. No title, therefore, in the said property passed to the appellants' predecessor. The appellants' predecessor, therefore, had no legal defence against the claim of the authorities in calling upon the appellants as heirs of the original purchaser to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the Central Government as full owner thereof. Both the points 1 & 2 for determination, therefore, are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. So far as point 3 at the time when the earlier order of October 12, 1977, was passed the said disputed property clearly reflected the utilisation of tainted money of ₹ 88,562. If subsequent dealing with the said property is found to be unauthorised and inoperative in law and if such subsequent transaction qua the said property remains a still-born one no life can be infused in it on account of the subsequent forfeiture of some other property of the original vendor when a subsequent forfeiture has stood on its own and has become final. The third point for determination, therefore, also is held against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. On pint 4 the transaction of purchase by Tayab Ali was an exercise in futility. Such a still-born transaction cannot be resurrected by passing an order of fine in lieu of forfeiture. The forfeiture of this very property had already taken place on October 12, 1977, and which order got ultimately confirmed by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the appellants to contend that the clock should be put back and the October 12, 1977, order may be converted into fine in lieu of forfeiture especially when Tahira Sultana against whom that order has operated, has finally lost in her challenge to the said order. The fourth point for determination, therefore, has also to be rejected and stands decided against the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
|