The question whether the innocent/bonafide purchasers can be make liable for the default of their predecessor is very relevant in modern times. Especially in Kerala, a lot of cases are reporting in this arena. The precaution that can be done for and on behalf of a genuine purchaser is that, the party can check the 'thandapper' in the Village office, get a possession certificate from the Village Office, a non encumbrance certificate from the concerned Registrar Office etc. There are several instances which, even though the above said precautions are complied, when the new deed is produced before the Village office for mutation and change in the registry, a new claim of attachment or dues may occur.
The fact that, once the District Collector signs the recovery certificate, the charge of the property started counting. But the recovery certificate and the concerned documents would reach in the Village Office and other offices on a later stage, viz it may range from one month to three months. The sale deed executed in between these times may also be in trouble on the basis of the alleged recovery. Offcourse, the fraudulent transfer to defeat the recovery is barred, but the question of bonafide purchaser, who has made all available inquiries need to be addressed in detail.
The fact that even if the notice of attachment is not shown in the village office, the dues are on the bonafide purchaser.
The Case law in St.Arnold Divine Works (2006 (3) KLT SN 48 )observes that, the bonafide purchaser should not be proceeded against, under Section 44 of Revenue Recovery Act. The question whether when the arrears fallen due is the paramount one to be considered. The present law is that, the date in which the collector signs under section 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act is the date of commencement of Recovery. (State of Kerala V.R.Kalyanikkutty).1999(2) KLT 146.
The fact that, once the District Collector signs the recovery certificate, the charge of the property started counting. But the recovery certificate and the concerned documents would reach in the Village Office and other offices on a later stage, viz it may range from one month to three months. The sale deed executed in between these times may also be in trouble on the basis of the alleged recovery. Offcourse, the fraudulent transfer to defeat the recovery is barred, but the question of bonafide purchaser, who has made all available inquiries need to be addressed in detail.
The fact that even if the notice of attachment is not shown in the village office, the dues are on the bonafide purchaser.
The Case law in St.Arnold Divine Works (2006 (3) KLT SN 48 )observes that, the bonafide purchaser should not be proceeded against, under Section 44 of Revenue Recovery Act. The question whether when the arrears fallen due is the paramount one to be considered. The present law is that, the date in which the collector signs under section 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act is the date of commencement of Recovery. (State of Kerala V.R.Kalyanikkutty).1999(2) KLT 146.
No comments:
Post a Comment