CHARAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal. The relief claimed in the suit is a declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of house No. 1137 in Madanmahal Ward, Nagpur Road, Jabalpur. The plaintiff claims title to this house by virtue of a gift deed dated 19th February, 1963 in her favour by her husband, deceased Mehtab Singh, who was admittedly the owner of the house. The occasion for the suit is the recovery proceedings by the defendants against Mehtab Singh for recovery of sales tax dues of the firm M/s. Mehtab Singh and Sons, for the period 1st January, 1958 to 31st December, 1964, amounting to approximately Rs. 78,000. There is no controversy that the defendants are entitled to recover the sales tax dues by proceeding against the suit house in case title to it has not been transferred to Mehtab Singh's wife, the plaintiff Smt. Charan Kaur, by the gift deed dated 19th February, 1963. This is clear from the liability of Mehtab Singh at least as a partner of the firm for the entire relevant period in accordance with the provisions of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The plaintiff's claim of title to the suit house has been negatived by both the courts below. It has been held that the gift dated 19th February, 1963 was executed by Mehtab Singh in favour of his wife merely with intention to defraud the Revenue and, therefore, the gift is void in accordance with section 33-A of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The only question involved in this appeal is whether this conclusion of the courts below is contrary to law.

(2.) THE facts beyond controversy are alone sufficient for the dismissal of this appeal. Mehtab Singh was admittedly liable for payment of the sales tax dues and this liability had been incurred by him prior to execution of the gift deed dated 19th February, 1963 in favour of his wife, the plaintiff. His intention to defraud the Revenue by making such a gift, as found proved by the courts below, is obvious. The essential requirements of section 33-A of the Act have been rightly held to be proved.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then contended that the plaintiff should have at least been given a notice before proceeding to recover sales tax dues from the suit house. There is no basis to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to such a notice on the basis of her claim to ownership of the suit house by virtue of the aforesaid gift deed. It was for the plaintiff to assert and prove her title when action was taken to recover the amount due and this she attempted to do by first filing an objection before the recovery officer and then by the suit after rejection of her objection by the recovery officer.