AISABI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 11 /1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Hosdurg is the Appellant. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from taking any steps to sell 6/7 shares of plaint A schedule property belonging to the Plaintiff. The suit was filed against the income-tax authorities seeking to restrain them from proceeding against the property for realising the arrears of income-tax dues from the husband of the Plaintiff. The trial court held that the Plaintiff has not made any claim under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and that the Plaintiff has to file claim petition as provided under the Income-tax Act and only after resorting to the statutory remedy, the Plaintiff can approach the Court of law. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable, since the proper stage to file the suit of this nature comes only when the efficacious statutory remedies shall stand exhausted. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of the above-said observations. The Plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 90/1996 before the lower Appellate Court and the said Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(2.) Admittedly, the property stands in the joint names of Plaintiff and her husband. The husband is the defaulter under the Income-tax Act. They purchased the property as per Exts. A 1 and A2 registered sale deeds dated 22-9-1971. The suit was filed in the year 1994. As on the date of filing of the suit the Plaintiff and her husband are jointly enjoying the property for a period not less than 23 years. Going by Exts. A 1 and A2 the Plaintiff acquired 6/7 shares in plaint A schedule property and her husband only 111 shares. The residential building put up in the property stands in the name of the Plaintiff and her husband. Plaintiff claimed that she has 6/7 shares in the plaint schedule property and her husband has only 1/7 share.

(3.) From Exts. A 1 and A2 sale deeds it is clear that the Plaintiff and her husband acquired this property in the year 1971. The recitals in Exts. A 1 and A2 show that the consideration for purchase of the property was paid proportionately. The property was purchased by them at a time when there was no income-tax arrears.