Rule 11 claim inquiries must focus on possession, not title; a jurisdictional error arises when title is wrongly decided.

Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act requires a summary inquiry focused on whether the claimant had possession of the property, and whether that possession was on the claimant's own account or on behalf of the defaulter; title may be considered only incidentally to determine the character of possession. The Tax Recovery Officer erred by not investigating possession and instead treating the transfers as void on alleged non-compliance with section 230A and on the basis that section 281 was inapplicable. That approach departed from the scope of Rule 11 and amounted to a jurisdictional error, so the attachment-related order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision within the limits of Rule 11.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a claim petition under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tax Recovery Officer was required to decide possession and the character of possession rather than adjudicate title; and whether the order could be sustained on the grounds of alleged invalidity of the sale deeds under section 230A and inapplicability of section 281.

Analysis: Rule 11 contemplates a summary investigation directed primarily to whether the claimant had interest in, or possession of, the property at the relevant date, and whether such possession was on the claimant's own account or on behalf of the defaulter. The inquiry does not extend to adjudication of complicated questions of title, though title may arise incidentally to determine the character of possession. The Tax Recovery Officer did not investigate possession at all and instead proceeded to decide title and to treat the transfers as void on the supposed violation of section 230A and on the footing that section 281 was inapplicable. That approach departed from the statutory scheme of Rule 11 and amounted to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The order dismissing the claim was unsustainable because it omitted the mandatory inquiry into possession and wrongly ventured into title adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment-related order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law, confined to the scope of Rule 11.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the decisive inquiry is possession and the nature of possession at the relevant date, while title can be examined only incidentally; an authority that adjudicates title instead of possession commits a jurisdictional error.

---