Tax recovery protection for revenue prevails where transfers are made with knowledge of pending proceedings and defeat of claims.

Where property was transferred after the original dealer had knowledge of pending tax recovery proceedings, the transfer was treated as intended to defeat revenue claims and fell within the statutory bar. The court held that a settlement made in favour of a family member in those circumstances was void against the revenue, and later purchasers could not acquire a better title than the transferor. The plea that the plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice was rejected, and the challenge to enforcement of the revenue charge also failed because the underlying recovery proceedings were valid and no legally protected title existed in the plaintiffs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice and to resist the recovery proceedings on the ground that the transfer was not hit by the statutory bar against transfers made to defraud revenue.

Analysis: The property had been subjected to tax recovery proceedings arising out of arrears due from the original dealer partner, and the evidence was accepted to show that he had knowledge of the proceedings well before the settlement and subsequent sales. In that background, the settlement in favour of the second daughter was treated as a transfer intended to defeat revenue claims, attracting the statutory bar. Since the foundation transfer was void, the subsequent purchasers could not acquire a better title, and their plea of bona fide purchase without notice was rejected. The challenge based on enforcement of charge against a transferee also failed in view of the valid recovery proceedings and the absence of a legally protected title in the plaintiffs.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers, and the transfer was held void against the revenue claim.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings against the plaintiffs were upheld and the recovery action was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made with knowledge of pending tax recovery proceedings and with intent to defeat the revenue is void against the revenue claim, and a subsequent transferee cannot invoke bona fide purchase without notice to defeat enforcement.

---