TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied that there was no encumbrance over the property. According to the plaintiffs, the vendor had also assured the purchaser that there was no encumbrance on the property and the vendor had also given an undertaking that he and his heirs would be liable for any loss that might be sustained by the first plaintiff due to any defect in title. The first plaintiff got possession of the property and the patta for the suit land was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar of Palani did not give any information to the plaintiff about the pendency of the proceedings before the income-tax authorities against one Krishnasami Maniagarar, the vendor. Later, at the time of the marriage of the second plaintiff, the first plaintiff promised the bride's party that some property would be settled on the second plaintiff and his wife, the third plaintiff herein. Accordingly, the first plaintiff executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 on May 24, 1973. Ever since, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first plaintiff came to know of the pendency of the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale of the suit property which is said to have been purchased by the first plaintiff on September 28, 1966, is long after the issue of certificate to the defaulter, that the act of the defaulter in disposing of the property after the issue of certificate shows that he had done so only to escape from the liability, that the Tax Recovery Officer, Salem, in his letter dated December 28, 1971, intimated that the defaulter had transferred his landed property to the first plaintiff and to one Haji Mohammed Rahamathulla, that it is only on the basis of the certificates, the property was attached by the issue of I. T. C. P. No. 16, dated January 10, 1972, that the attempt of the plaintiff to establish the bona fides on the basis of the patta transfer proceedings is not correct, that the plaintiff is not entitled to question the order of attachment made by the third defendant on January 10, 1972, that the alienation in favour of the plaintiff by the assessee tax defaulter, who knew or must be deemed to have known of the pendency of the proceedings against him under the Income-tax Act was made with a view to defraud the Revenue and that the sale is, therefore, hit by section 281 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r setting aside the decrees of the courts below. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, viz., the Income-tax Department, after pointing out the necessary provisions of the Income-tax Act and Rules, in the light of exhibit B-1, contended that the plaintiffs' vendor was quite aware of the entire proceedings and hence, according to her, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are correct and prayed for the dismissal of the second appeal. Under exhibit A-1, the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property in question from one Krishnasami Maniagarar on September 28, 1966. According to the plaintiffs, they have verified and obtained the encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property. After the sale, they also obtained the patta under exhibit A-3 in their favour. It is the definite case of the plaintiffs that they were not aware of the prior income-tax recovery proceedings and neither of them, nor their vendor were served with any statutory notice, more particularly under rule 2 of the Second Schedule. it is the specific contention of the defendants that the sale deed, exhibit A-1, effected by Krishnasami Maniagarar after the initiation of the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under this Schedule, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the defaulter of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. " Rule 51 of the Second Schedule provides that : "Where any immovable property is attached under this Schedule, the attachment shall relate back to, and take effect from, the date on which the notice to pay the arrears, issued under this Schedule, was served upon the defaulter." Rule 48 of the Second Schedule provides that : " Attachment of the immovable property of the defaulter shall be made by an order prohibiting the defaulter from transferring or charging the property in any way and prohibiting all persons from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge. " It is the specific contention of the defendants that the transfer under exhibit A-1 on September 28, 1966, in favour of the first plaintiff had been made after the certificate of arrears was issued by the Income-tax Officer, Salem, to the Tax Recovery Officer. Exhibit B-1, the file relating to the collection of arrears to the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars towards the income-tax and the time within which the amount to be paid. In order to give an opportunity to the defaulter, all necessary things have to be mentioned in the notice under rule 2. In this respect, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that though the notice under rule 2 has not been served prior to exhibit A-1, other notices mentioning the tax arrears and the time within which the defaulter has to settle the amount have been sent and as a matter of fact, the defaulter himself gave an undertaking before the officer that he would pay the tax amount, if sufficient time is granted. In other words, even though no specific notice under rule 2 was given, the necessary ingredients mentioned in rule 2 have been fully satisfied by the Department by sending various notices prior to exhibit A-1. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the entire proceedings are vitiated because of non-compliance with rule 2 cannot be accepted. Moreover, exhibit B-1 shows that on April 18, 1966, itself the vendor of the plaintiffs had given a statement before the Tahsildar which runs as follows : Page 23 of the file shows that on April 26, 1966, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
