TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed dated 04.09.2014, the petitioner has paid a sale consideration of ₹ 13,43,048/- for the extent of property 3.850 cents situated at Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanniyakumari District - Admittedly, the attachment over the property was executed by the first respondent only on 06.10.2015 for the arrears of property tax payable by V.S.K.Radha Krishnan, the father of the petitioner's vendor R.Rajiv. The respondents have also not produced any iota of evidence against the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent against the father of the petitioner's vendor for arrears of property tax. In the case on hand, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and has taken the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed from Mr.R.Rajiv, having paid valuable consideration for the same. It is also her case that she obtained encumbrance certificate from the second respondent on 08.08.2014 for the subject property and only after verifying the same that there is nil encumbrance, she purchased the property from R.Rajiv. According to the petitioner, she was shocked to know that on 06.10.2015, the second respondent has made an encumbrance by effecting the order of attachment over the subject property on the ground that R.Rajiv's father namely Mr.V.S.K.Radha Krishnan, who is the Power of attorney holder in the sale deed and who is the dealer registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, has arrears of property tax to the first respondent. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai reported in [1971] 1 SCC 757 . Therefore, he would submit that when bonafide purchaser takes the property, he buys free of all charges of which he has no notice either actual or constructive. 6.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader after drawing the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, would submit that V.S.Radha Krishnan (dealer), the father of R.Rajiv, is the owner of a larger extent of land, which has been sub divided into various plots, of which the petitioner is interested only in one plot. There are other plots, which were purchased by various other parties from R.Rajiv and his family, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hased the property only after obtaining encumbrance on 08.08.2014. On the date of encumbrance dated 08.08.2014, there was no attachment made by the first respondent. The petitioner purchased the property from Rajiv under sale deed dated 04.09.2014, registered as document No.2758 of 2014 in Sub Registrar's Office, Kanniyakumari District. As seen from the sale deed dated 04.09.2014, the petitioner has paid a sale consideration of ₹ 13,43,048/- for the extent of property 3.850 cents situated at Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. 9.Admittedly, the attachment over the property was executed by the first respondent only on 06.10.2015 for the arrears of property tax payable by V.S.K.Radha Krishnan, the father of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the charge created over the property for payment of arrears of sales tax in respect of the business conducted by his vendor. 10.A bona fide purchaser takes the property he buys free of all charges of which he has no notice either actual or constructive. He is said to have constructive notice when ordinary prudence or care would have impelled him to undertake an enquiry which would have disclosed a charge. If for instance, the charge is created by a registered document, then the purchaser would be held to have constructive notice of that charge inasmuch as a prudent purchaser would in ordinary course search the Registers before effecting the purchase. In the instant case, the encumbrance certificate did not disclose any charge cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
