9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner from Mr.R.Rajiv, under sale deed dated 04.09.2014, registered under document No.2758/14, on the file of the second respondent. 2.Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that she is a bonafide purchaser, purchased from Mr.R.Rajiv, having paid valuable consideration for the same. It is also her case that she obtained encumbrance certificate from the second respondent on 08.08.2014 for the subject property and only after verifying the same that there is nil encumbrance, she purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner also drew the attention of this Court to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in [2019] 62 GSTR 459 (Mad) in the case of M.Thirumaran Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Sengottai Assessment Circle, Sengottai and another and would submit that in a similar set of facts, the Division Bench has held that the attachment is illegal. He would also submit that the Division Bench has followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai reported in [1971] 1 SCC 757. Therefore, he would submit that when bonafide purchaser takes the property, he buys free of all charges of which he has no notice either actual or constructive. 6.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to remove the encumbrance. 25.10.2019 Notice issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. 8.As seen from the above, it is very clear that the petitioner purchased the property only after obtaining encumbrance on 08.08.2014. On the date of encumbrance dated 08.08.2014, there was no attachment made by the first respondent. The petitioner purchased the property from Rajiv under sale deed dated 04.09.2014, registered as document No.2758 of 2014 in Sub Registrar's Office, Kanniyakumari District. As seen from the sale deed dated 04.09.2014, the petitioner has paid a sale consideration of Rs. 13,43,048/- for the extent of property 3.850 cents situated at Agasteeswaram Taluk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndor of the writ petitioner was actually closed on April 1, 2002 and the property had been purchased by the writ petitioner only in the year 2004. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had actual or constructive notice of the charge created over the property for payment of arrears of sales tax in respect of the business conducted by his vendor. 10.A bona fide purchaser takes the property he buys free of all charges of which he has no notice either actual or constructive. He is said to have constructive notice when ordinary prudence or care would have impelled him to undertake an enquiry which would have disclosed a charge. If for instance, the charge is created by a registered document, then the purchaser would be held to have constructive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
