KAMLA BAI Vs. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original plaintiff has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2001, passed by II Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No. 33A/1994, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that she is owner and possession holder of the suit house and it has No. nexus with the recovery of arrears of tax against M/s Manmohan Badriprasad and for perpetual injunction against the respondents from restraining them to auction the suit house in the above mentioned recovery proceedings.

(2.) Appellant-Kamlabai filed a suit before the trial Court on 11.7.1994 with the pleadings that the suit house situated in village Fatehgarh is of sole ownership and possession of the plaintiff, wherein she is residing with her husband and her husband is a teacher in government service. The plaintiff and her husband Radhamohan are No. having any connection with the business of concern M/s Manmohan Badriprasad Fatehgarh. Being a government teacher, her husband did No. do any business but defendant No. 2 has illegally attached the suit house in recovery proceedings regarding the arrears of sales tax against the above mentioned concern, against which the plaintiff filed her objection with the documents of her title in the relating Sales Tax Office but her objection was dismissed on 29th June, 2014. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has constructed the suit house over the land bearing Survey No. 212, area 0.031 hectare of village Fatehgarh and in Kamlabai v. State of MP and another this relation against her a case of encroachment was registered by the government and she was fined, but the legal proceeding ultimately terminated in her favour. In encroachment proceedings, her husband Radha Mohan was also a party along with her. The defendants are proceeding for auction of her attached house, hence reliefs of above mentioned declaration and perpetual injunction were claimed.

(3.) In written statement filed by the defendants, it was pleaded that the disputed house is owned by the plaintiff and her husband Radha Mohan jointly and in the business of the above mentioned concern, the plaintiff's husband was conducting the business and was also representing the concern before the departmental proceedings of sales tax. The plaintiff's husband was regularly depositing the taxes under different heads till 1978 and in Sales Tax Office in relating proceedings, Radha Mohan had signed on the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the above mentioned concern. Relating statements were regularly submitted in the Sales Tax Department signed by Radha Mohan himself and he was personally appearing in the relating recovery proceedings, hence the plaintiff and her husband are well acquainted with the arrears of sales tax and the suit is filed in the name of wife by the husband to evade his tax liability, whereas both are jointly living and plaintiff was No. having any separate earnings. The suit house is constructed from the income of the above mentioned concern and, hence, the suit house is totally liable for auctioning it under recovery proceedings and the plaintiff is No. entitled for any relief.