Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The provisions of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Ahamedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamedabad v. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai [1971] 1 SCC 757. In that case, the respondent was in arrears of property tax, due under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Consequently, the Municipal Corporation created a charge over the property of the defaulter. However, the property was sold in execution of a mortgage decree. When the Municipal Corporation purported to exercise their charge over the property, the purchaser in court auction filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the property and that the arrears of municipal taxes due by the transferor were not recoverable from him by proceeding against the property purchased in the auction. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Municipal Corporation's main argument was that there were the local law provided for the creation of a charge against a property for which municipal taxes were due, transferees of such properties were imputed with constructive knowledge of any charge created against the properties that they had purchased. This argument, was, however, rejected. The Court held that while constructive notice was sufficient to satisfy the notice in the proviso to Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, whether the transferee had constructive notice of the charge had to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, the Supreme Court held that there could be no fixed presumption as to the transferee having constructive notice of the charge against the property. The principle laid down in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case [1971] 1 SCC 757 has been applied in a sales tax case arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in State of Karnataka Vs.Shreyas Papers P.Ltd [2006] 144 STC 331 (SC); [2006] 1 SCC 615. There, following the decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case [1971] 1 SCC 757, the Supreme Court held as follows:-