N.S. Vijayaraghavan vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

K.S. Paripoornan, J.—The petitioner purchased 17 cents of land at Trivandrum in 1967 with his own funds. He is an assessee to Income Tax ever since 1967-68. The petitioner claims that, on October 30, 1971, he furnished the original title deed of the aforesaid property to the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Ernakulam, as security for the payment of the tax which was then due from him. The arrears have been wiped out. The petitioner is entitled to the return of the title deed. It is not being returned to the petitioner. The petitioner filed exhibits P-3 and P-4 petitions before the respondents to return the documents. There is no reply thereto. The action on the part of the respondents is illegal. The respondents are bound to return the title deed. They have no right to retain the title deed relating to the petitioner''s property. The petitioner was informed that the title deed will not be returned as the property in question belongs to his father, late Sri Sreedharan Unni, and the document is being kept as a security for the tax arrears due from the deceased. When the amount due is paid, the respondents are not legally entitled to keep the document in their custody.

The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents to hand over the title deed relating to the petitioner''s 17 cents of property comprised in survey No. 946 of Chengazhassery village to the petitioner forthwith.

Two statements have been filed by the respondents. One is dated February 27, 1988. The other is dated December 18, 1989. In the earlier statement, the Revenue pleads that the petitioner has submitted the document as per letter dated October 30, 1971, as security for Income Tax arrears of his late father, Sri Sreedharan Unni. The letter is marked as exhibit R-2(a). The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, handed over the document to the Tax Recovery Officer, Quilon, on August 4, 1982. It is further stated that the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner by his father in 1967, when the petitioner was only a minor aged 13 and the consideration was paid by the late father. In the later statement dated December 18, 1989, the Revenue has stated that there were no arrears in respect of the petitioner on October 30, 1971, the date on which he furnished security by deposit of title deed as pointed out in the earlier statements stated to be filed by him on February 27, 29, 1988. The security was offered for the arrears relating to Sri Sreedharan Unni and Sree Krishna Pharmacy. The petitioner has further filed a reply affidavit. According to him, as could be seen from exhibit P-5 notice dated December 10, 1971, tax was demanded from him for the assessment year 1971-72. The petitioner handed over the title deed as security for tax arrears due from him.

I heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the Revenue. It is common ground that the title deed was handed over to the Department along with the covering letter by the petitioner, evidenced by exhibit R-2(a), as early as on October 30, 1971. The document was handed over as a security. The only controversy is whether the document was handed over as security for arrears due from the petitioner or for arrears due from his father, late Sri Sreedharan Unni. The petitioner would rely upon exhibit P-5 notice produced along with the reply affidavit to infer that on the date when the document was handed over, a demand was pending against him and so the document could have been handed over only for the arrears due from the petitioner. I am unable to accept this plea on the basis of materials placed before me. It is true that, in exhibit P-5, the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,963 on October 12, 1971. Be that as it may, I do not think that, in normal circumstances, security by way of document of title deed would be insisted on immediately for the sum of Rs. 1,963. It does not appear to be reasonable to infer that, for the said demand, within a period of 18 days, security would have been insisted on or furnished.

De hors exhibit P-5, there is no other material to come to the conclusion as to for what arrears the document of title was handed over to the Revenue. The Department has a further case that the property itself belonged to the petitioner''s father as, at the time of purchase, the petitioner was a minor aged only 13 years and normally the petitioner would not have independent source to buy the property. This is a very cogent material which has got to be evaluated. Even so, the further question will arise as to whether the document was handed over as per exhibit R-2(a) for the arrears due from the petitioner or those due from his father. To decide the above questions, factual details are to be gathered and evaluated and evidence has to be let in before the appropriate authority. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not appropriate to adjudicate questions relating to title or disputed questions regarding the manner or purpose for which documents of title were handed over to the Department by way of, security. In this view of the matter, I deny jurisdiction.

The original petition is without merit and it is dismissed.