Bona fide purchaser without notice must be pleaded and proved to resist enforcement of a statutory charge.

A statutory charge for sales tax arrears under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act can operate against the defaulter's property like a simple mortgage, but a transferee for value may claim protection only by pleading and proving absence of notice under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of establishing bona fide purchase without notice lies on the purchaser, and material facts must be specifically pleaded under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC and supported by evidence under section 101 of the Evidence Act. Because the petitioners did not establish those foundational facts conclusively, their claim to immunity from recovery proceedings was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, were entitled to challenge recovery proceedings by asserting that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the statutory charge created for sales tax arrears.

Analysis: A statutory charge under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act operates as a charge on the defaulter's property and, by virtue of section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is comparable to a simple mortgage. Such charge cannot be enforced against a transferee for consideration without notice, but the protection is available only if the purchaser establishes absence of notice within the meaning of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The pleadings and surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the original assessee and the intermediate transferee, the pendency of civil proceedings, and the absence of pleaded material facts showing due inquiry, required evidence and could not be conclusively resolved on affidavits alone. The burden to prove the foundational facts for claiming bona fide purchase without notice lay on the petitioners under section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and material facts had to be pleaded in accordance with Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish a clear entitlement to protection as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the challenge to the recovery action was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser seeking immunity from enforcement of a statutory charge must both plead and prove, with material facts and evidence, that the purchase was for value and without notice of the charge.

---