Nomination does not confer exclusive title; a defaulting heir's undivided share in inherited property remains attachable for tax recovery.

A nomination or society membership entry does not by itself confer exclusive title to immovable property, and where an intestate owner's property devolves on all legal heirs, unregistered papers are insufficient to divest the others of their shares. The petitioner therefore could not show exclusive ownership of the flat, so the entire property was not immune from attachment. The defaulting heir's undivided share remained attachable for tax recovery, while the attachment could not extend to the petitioner's or other heirs' shares. Any allegation that the later transfer arrangement was intended to defeat revenue was treated as a separate factual question left open for lawful adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner became the exclusive owner of the flat so as to exclude attachment for the tax dues of one of the legal heirs. (ii) Whether the defaulter's undivided share in the flat could be attached and whether the post-default transfer arrangement attracted the anti-fraud consequence under the taxing statute.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner became the exclusive owner of the flat so as to exclude attachment for the tax dues of one of the legal heirs.

Analysis: The property devolved on all the legal heirs on the death of the original owner intestate. A nomination or transfer of society membership in the petitioner's favour did not, by itself, effect a transfer of full title. The documents relied upon were unregistered and did not amount to a registered conveyance, gift, or relinquishment deed capable of divesting the other heirs of their proprietary share. Mere exclusive share certificate in the petitioner's name was therefore insufficient to establish exclusive ownership.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not shown to be the exclusive owner of the flat, and the plea that the entire flat was immune from attachment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the defaulter's undivided share in the flat could be attached and whether the post-default transfer arrangement attracted the anti-fraud consequence under the taxing statute.

Analysis: The revenue arrears related to earlier years, whereas the transfer arrangement in favour of the petitioner was subsequent in time. On that basis, the undivided share of the defaulter in the flat remained liable to attachment. The question whether the transfer was effected with intent to defeat the revenue was treated as a disputed factual question and was left open for consideration in accordance with law. The attachment was confined to the proportional right, title and interest of the defaulter, and not to the shares of the petitioner or the other legal heirs.

Conclusion: The defaulter's undivided share was attachable, and the challenge to the attachment order failed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected, with the attachment confined only to the defaulter's proportional share in the flat and no interference granted as to the remaining shares.

Ratio Decidendi: A nomination or society membership entry does not by itself confer exclusive title to immovable property, and where succession has opened on intestacy, the undivided share of a defaulting heir remains attachable for recovery of tax dues, subject to any separate adjudication on alleged fraud.

---