TIFANY NAZEEM Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the conveyance of the property effected in favour of the petitioner is put to challenge. Case of the petitioner is that, the father of the petitioner, who was the defaulter, had conveyed the property much earlier, in favour of the mother of the petitioner, as per settlement deed No.513/1998 of SRO Thodupuzha. The mother was enjoying the property with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and with clear and markable title, also remitting the property tax and building tax, ever since then. Later, the said property that was transferred by the mother, to the petitioner. But the initial conveyance by the father, in favour of the mother, was much prior to the date of accruing the liability and this being the position, the property is stated as not liable to be proceeded against under any circumstance, by invoking Section 44 of the RR Act.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits, with reference to the statement filed before this Court, that the property was transferred to the petitioner, much after the demand was served on the defaulter. The sequence of events is sought to be highlighted to show that the course pursued is a clandestine one, more so, it being among the close relatives, within the family.