Bona fide purchaser protection defeats unnotified revenue attachment where actual or constructive notice is not proved.

A statutory attachment or revenue charge cannot bind a transferee for consideration unless the purchaser had actual or constructive notice. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a bona fide purchaser without notice, while section 3 deems notice only where actual knowledge, wilful abstention from inquiry, gross negligence, or legally recognised notice is shown. On the record, the attachment was not properly published or effectively communicated to alert a purchaser, and the affidavits from the Sub-Registrar and Divisional Commissioner did not prove reliable service or record. The petitioners were therefore treated as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the attachment order, demands, and notices were quashed insofar as they applied to them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment of the suit property under the sales tax recovery proceedings was enforceable against the petitioners, and whether they had actual or constructive notice of the revenue charge so as to invalidate their purchase.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a transferee for consideration without notice of a charge, while section 3 deems notice in cases of actual knowledge, wilful abstention from inquiry, gross negligence, registered instruments, possession, or notice to an agent. The Court also examined the recovery scheme under section 68 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, read with section 70 of that Act, and the recovery process under section 136 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and sections 21 and 22 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. On the record, the attachment was not shown to have been properly published or effectively communicated to the Sub-Registrar so as to alert a purchaser. The affidavits from the Sub-Registrar and the Divisional Commissioner did not establish proper service or reliable office record of the attachment. The circumstances were insufficient to fix the petitioners with constructive notice.

Conclusion: The petitioners were bona fide purchasers without notice of the attachment. The attachment order and consequential demands and notices were not binding on them and were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory charge or attachment cannot be enforced against a purchaser for consideration unless the purchaser had actual or constructive notice, and such notice cannot be presumed in the absence of proper publication or proved communication of the attachment.

---