VIJAYARAGHAVAN N S Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner purchased 17 cents of land at Trivandrum in 1967 with his own funds. He is an assessee to income-tax ever since 1967-68. THE petitioner claims that, on October 30, 1971, he furnished the original title deed of the aforesaid property to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Ernakulam, as security for the payment of the tax which was then due from him. THE arrears have been wiped out. THE petitioner is entitled to the return of the title deed. It is not being returned to the petitioner. THE petitioner filed exhibits P-3 and P-4 petitions before the respondents to return the documents. THEre is no reply thereto. THE action on the part of the respondents is illegal. THE respondents are bound to return the title deed. THEy have no right to retain the title deed relating to the petitioner's property. THE petitioner was informed that the title deed will not be returned as the property in question belongs to his father, late Sri Sreedharan Unni, and the document is being kept as a security for the tax arrears due from the deceased. When the amount due is paid, the respondents are not legally entitled to keep the document in their custody.

(2.) THE petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents to hand over the title deed relating to the petitioner's 17 cents of property comprised in survey No. 946 of Chengazhassery village to the petitioner forthwith.

(3.) DE hors exhibit P-5, there is no other material to come to the conclusion as to for what arrears the document of title was handed over to the Revenue. The DEpartment has a further case that the property itself belonged to the petitioner's father as, at the time of purchase, the petitioner was a minor aged only 13 years and normally the petitioner would not have independent source to buy the property. This is a very cogent material which has got to be evaluated. Even so, the further question will arise as to whether the document was handed over as per exhibit R-2(a) for the arrears due from the petitioner or those due from his father. To decide the above questions, factual details are to be gathered and evaluated and evidence has to be let in before the appropriate authority. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not appropriate to adjudicate questions relating to title or disputed questions regarding the manner or purpose for which documents of title were handed over to the DEpartment by way of, security. In this view of the matter, I deny jurisdiction.