TAX RECOVERY COMMISSIONER Vs. BASAVARAJAPPA K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in these writ appeals will be referred to as they were referred to in Writ Petition No. 12082 of 1988, throughout this judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to these writ appeals are the following :

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 and 2 contended that, under rule 2, notice ITCP-I was served on Y. S. Devendra Murthy, the defaulter, on September 3, 1973; by virtue of rule 51, attachment proceedings, though subsequently made, relate back to September 3, 1973, the date on which notice was served under rule 2 on the defaulter; rule 16 prohibits private alienation or dealing with the property, after the service of notice under rule 2, by the defaulter or his representative in interest; the agreement of sale entered into on November 20, 1982, by petitioner No. 1 with Y. S. Devendra Murthy after service of notice under rule 2 was void and unenforceable in law; no right, title or interest in the property accrued to the first petitioner by virtue of the said agreement; the first petitioner was not a person whose interest was affected by the same as no interest accrued to him under the said agreement of sale by virtue of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act; the application filed by him under rule 60 being one by a person whose interest was not affected by the sale was not at all maintainable. As such, it was rightly rejected by the respondent No. 2 and the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 was also rightly rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.