PONNESAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.298 of 1987 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and no portion of the said property is liable to be attached as contemplated in the notices dtd. 8/12/1986 and 16/4/1987 and the attachment if any already effected is void. The plaintiff further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any further action pursuant to the notices as stated above. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed A.S.No.174 of 1996 before the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the first appeal. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff had contended that the said suit schedule property originally belonged to one K.T.Lukose and he had settled the said property in favour of his nephew N.Babu under a gift deed in Document No.452 of 1981.Thereafter, the said Babu had sold the same in favour of one Swaminathan under Exhibit A1 on 21/7/1983. According to the plaintiff, the said Swaminathan had sold the property to the plaintiff under Exhibit A14 on 20/6/1984. The plaintiff received a notice under Exhibit A9 on 8/12/1986 from the office of the second defendant claiming that the suit property is proposed to be attached under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act unless he pays the sales tax arrears of Rs.14,19,763.00. The plaintiff sent a reply under Exhibit A10 on 24/12/1986. According to the plaintiff, he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The plaintiff has further contended that the building in the said property has been put up by his predecessor in title when he was the owner of the land. The plaintiff has further contended that if one K.T.Thomas had any tax arrears, the same could be collected from him and the properties that are belonging to the said K.T.Thomas. However, the second defendant department is not entitled to attach the properties standing in the name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 16/4/1987, the second defendant sent a notice stating that the objections raised by the plaintiff have been overruled and if the arrears are not settled within 15 days, the properties in R.S.No. 608/5 and 608/8 will be attached and brought to public auction. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property is not liable for attachment for realisation of any amount due personally by K.T.Thomas and K.T.Lukose. There was no prior debt/charge or liability cast upon the said property, when the plaintiff has purchased the same from Swaminathan.