SIBY JOSE Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the transferee of the property, covered by Ext. P1 sale deed, executed by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is in default to the Income Tax Department. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P7 communication, issued by the first respondent, stating that the transfer of the property, covered by Ext. P1, made by the fourth respondent, in favour of the petitioner, is invalid. This is an order on a claim petition filed by the writ petitioner under R.11 of Schedule II of Income Tax Act. Going by Ext. P7, it would appear that the fourth respondent defaulter has been served with a notice on 13.11.1997 itself. Therefore, according to the first respondent, any transfer made thereafter is void, as the fourth respondent is disabled from dealing with his properties. The petitioner seriously attacks the findings in Ext. P7. According to him, he entered into an agreement in 1993 with the fourth respondent for the purchase of the property. An advance of Rupees Two lakhs was paid in 1993. The entire sale consideration was paid by 2000. Finally, after filing a suit for specific performance, the sale deed was executed on 17.5.2004. There is no material on record to show that notice has been served on the defaulter before the execution of the sale deed. So, he contends, Ext. P7 is invalid.

(2.) The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. According to him, the notice regarding default has been served on him only in 1997. But, the agreement was executed in 1993.