1982 (10) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant-1 from selling the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiff claims that it was a registered partnership firm and that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule Property having purchased the same from defendant-2 under a registered sale deed dated October 24, 1966. Proceedings were initiated by defendant-1 for recovery of arrears of income-tax due by defendant-2 who, in turn, sold the property in question in favour of defendant-1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property could not be attached by defendant-1 as, at that time, it became the prop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 4 and 6 in the affirmative and issues Nos. 5 and 7 in the negative and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the City Civil judge, Bangalore City, and the VIII Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore City, who heard the appeal in Regular Appeal No. 188 of 1980, on his file, formulated the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal : " (1) Was the trial court justified in holding that the suit was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? (2) Whether the appellant was entitled for the injunction sought for on the alleged contention that he had purchased the suit schedul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sale is for recovery of the tax due to the Central Govt. Therefore, if the relief has to be given, it is obvious that the person who suffers is the Central Govt. and not the TRO in his individual capacity. Therefore, it is obvious that the Central Govt. becomes a necessary party to the suit since, ultimately, it is the Central Govt. which is likely to suffer. That being so, it Was necessary that notice under s. 80 of the CPC should have been issued to the Central Govt. as well as to the TRO in question. That is what is laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case, State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant, AIR 1977 SC 148. In para. 14 of the judgment it is stated thus : " The language of sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is tha....