9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act regarding ownership of land under an agreement of sale. Analysis: The petitioner sought to avoid the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act regarding an extent of land under an agreement of sale. The petitioner argued that since possession had been transferred to the buyer, they should not be considered the owner under the Act. The petitioner's argument was rejected by all authorities involved. The petitioner relied on sections 2(q) and 2(nn) of the Act, which define "person" and "to hold" respectively. The petitioner also referenced section 23 of the Act and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to support their claim that ownership had transferred to the buyer. However, it was clarified that section 53A only provides a defense to the transferee, not a transfer of title. The judgment emphasized that possession under an agreement of sale does not equate to ownership. The court highlighted that section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is a shield for the transferee, not a tool for the transferor to claim ownership transfer. The court cited a case from the High Court of Gujarat to support the principle that receipt of part payment and possession does not divest the seller of ownership. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that section 53A is a defense for the transferee, not a means to transfer title to the buyer. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner had not ceased to be the owner of the land in question, as no transfer of title had occurred. The court found no grounds to interfere with the authorities' decisions under the Act and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
|
