Statutory charge under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act binds later purchasers without notice

Upon service of notice under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, the amount due under the certificate becomes a statutory charge on the debtor's immovable property under section 8(b), and the certificate proceedings operate as a self-contained statutory mechanism. The plaint was held to disclose a cause of action for enforcement of that charge. A subsequent purchaser for value without notice was not protected, because the Act contains no provision defeating the statutory charge on that basis. The charge therefore remained enforceable against the property despite later private transfers, and the plea of bona fide purchase without notice failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for enforcement of the statutory charge created under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; (ii) whether a subsequent purchaser for value without notice was protected against the charge created on service of notice under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for enforcement of the statutory charge created under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

Analysis: Under section 7, service of notice on the certificate debtor is the operative step that brings the statutory machinery into motion, and section 8(b) makes the amount due under the certificate a charge upon the immovable property of the debtor wherever situated. The statutory scheme treats the certificate proceedings as self-contained and the charge arises by operation of law once notice is duly served and the certificate is filed. On the facts found, service of notice and the certificate proceedings were established, and the plaintiff sought enforcement of that charge rather than avoidance of the private transfer itself.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent purchaser for value without notice was protected against the charge created on service of notice under the Act.

Analysis: The Act contains no provision protecting a subsequent purchaser for value against the statutory charge created by section 8(b). Once notice under section 7 is served, the charge attaches and the creditor's right is unaffected by a later private transfer. The defendants led no evidence sufficient to establish protection on this footing, and the court held that the purchaser's lack of notice did not defeat the statutory charge. The statutory protection in section 8 operates according to the Act and not according to general equitable notions of notice.

Conclusion: The plea of bona fide purchase without notice failed, and the issue was answered against the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The statutory charge was enforceable against the property notwithstanding the subsequent transfers, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree enforcing that charge.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon due service of notice under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, the amount due becomes a charge on the debtor's immovable property wherever situated, and a subsequent transferee for value without notice cannot defeat that charge in the absence of a statutory protection.

---