DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL C Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the Income-tax Office, Second Additional City Circle Madras, the Collector of Nilgiris Nilgiris district and the Tahsildar of Coonoor, Coonoor taluk, Nilgiris district, restraining them from proceeding to attach, or to bring to sale, the petitioner's properties for the realisation of the alleged income-tax arrears of her husband, Tharanisingh Gramani and in particular from proceeding with the sale of the Benhutty estate, Kulifcai village, Coonoor taluk, Nilgiris district.

(2.) FOR the recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner's husband; Tharani Singh Gramani, a certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer, the first respondent, to the Collector of Nilgiris (the second respondent) under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act The Collector, in pursuance of this certificate,' proceeded under Sec. 27 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, to attach the property described as Benhutty estate for the realisation of the said arrears. This estate, it is common ground, was purchased in the name of the petitioner by a deed of sale dated 1st September 1947. Nevertheless, the property was sought to be attached as the property of the' husband Tharanisingh Gramani, treating the purchase in the name of the petitioner as benami for her husband. In the affidavit filed by the Collector before us, the position taken up-by the respondents is set out thus:

(3.) IN Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama, 7 ILR(Mad) 405 (B), it was held that where a landholder allows the registry of land to stand in the name of another and the revenue falls into arrears, a 'sale of the land under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act (Madras Act II of 1864), effected after service of notice upon the person in whose name the patta stands, will pass the landholder's interest to the purchaser at the revenue sale. IN Sampath V. Rajah of yenkatagirt, AIR 1931 Mad 51 (C), Ma-dhavan Nair J. after referring to earlier authorities, held that where one person was the real owner and another was the registered proprietor, the latter and not the former was the "defaulter" within the meaning of Section 35 of the Revenue Recovery Act (Vide also Venkappa Chari v pompana Gowd, 1918 Mad WN 191: (AIR 1918 Mad 42) (D).