SHANKER LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated December 23 1969, by the Additional Collector, Ajmer, and also the order dated July 28 1977, by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, whereby the order of the Additional Collector was confirmed in revision.

(2.) WE may state a few facts giving rise to this petition. Messrs. Kalu Ram Nemi Chand is a partnership firm, of which, admittedly, the two partners are Kalu Ram and his son Nemi Chand. An amount of Rs. 37,319. 50 P. was found due from firm Messrs. Kalu Ram Nemi Chand for the period commencing from October 20,1960 upto 1965. The last assessment is said to have been finalised on March 22, 1965. For recovery of the sales-tax dues the house in question was attached on July 22, 1968. Thereupon, the present petitioner, Shanker Lai filed an objection before the Additional Collector, Ajmer, alleging that the prooerty belonged to him and was not liable to be attached and sold for recovery of the sales-tax dues from the firm Messrs. Kalu Ram Nemi Chand His case, set out in the objection, was that Kalu Ram gifted away the house in question to his wife Smt. Bilam Bai by a registered gift-deed on July 17, 1961 and Smt. Bilam Bai sold the same to the Petitioner for a valuable consideration of Rs 25,000/-, by a registered sale-deed dated July 3,1968. The Additional Collector gave opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the point as to whether the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from a lawful owner. After recording the evidence produced by the parties he hold that the financial position of Kalu Ram was not sound at the time when he made the gift of the house in question to his wife and that the gift was made with an intention to evade the payment of sales-tax which could have been recovered by sale of the house, had it remained in the name of Kalu Ram. He also found that the liability for payment of sales-tax was there since April, 1961. In his view of the matter, he came to the conclusion that the gift made by Kalu Ram in favour of his wife Smt. Bilam Bai was not genuine. He also found hat the Possession of the property in question was not handed over to Shanker Lal. In the result, he dismised the objections. Aggrieved by the order of the Addi-tional Collector, the petitioner filed a revision-application before the Board of Revenue and the learned Member of the Board held that the sale by Smt. Bilam Bai on July 3 1968, in favour of the petitioner Shanker Lal was not a bonafide one and was made to defeat the recovery of the sales-tax dues. He has also upheld the finding by the learned Additional Collector regarding the genuineness of the gift by observing that "a gift by husband to wife in this context means nothing. "

(3.) LET us now examine the merits of this case from the point of view of the principle stated above. The Additional Collector has found that Kalu Ram, the donor, was indebted to the tune of Rs. 1,60,985/-, at the time the gift of the house was made by him in favour of his wife Smt. Bilam Bai. He has further found that in spite of the gift-deed having been executed no steps were taken by the donee to deposit the house-tax in her name or get the water or the electricity connections transferred in her name, so forth and soon. He has also taken into consideration the close relationship between the donor and the donee and it is not known what was the occasion for making the alleged gift. As regards the sale in favour of the petitioner by, the donee, the Additional Collector had observed that there is nothing to show that Shanker Lal had been put in possession of the property after its sale in his favour or that he had done any act, such as getting the water or electricity connections or the municipal record transferred in his name for the purpose of establishing his ownership to the house in question. In these circumstances, he found that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima-facie case that he was a bonafide purchaser for value from a lawful owner of the property. We are therefore, of opinion that the proper course for the petitioner is to file a suit in a a competent court and get his rights with respect to the property in dispute declared.