The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act in determining the maintainability of the suit and the ownership of the property.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit in O.S.No.13 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Karaikal was filed by the appellant for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any way proceeding against the suit property towards the arrears of income tax payable by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Govindarajan. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Challenging the same, the Union of India and Tax Recovery officer (the defendants) preferred an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 1997. The learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the lower court and dismissed the suit. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiff is before this Court with this Second Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. The plaintiff's father Mr.Govindarajan was an income tax assessee. The mother of the plaintiff was one Sivagangaiammal. The suit property, which is a landed property, was purchased under Ex.A.1 Sale Deed in the name of Mrs.Sivagangaiammal on 14.03.1958. According to the plaintiff, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property till her life time as absolute owner. She executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 05.02.1970 under Ex.A.2. After her demise, as per the Will, the plaintiff claims that he has become the absolute owner of the said property. Patta for this property has also been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. He has been paying the tax and other revenue dues for the property regularly. Thus, according to him, he is the absolute owner of the suit property. Thus according to him, Mr.Govindarajan, had no right or any title whatsoever over the property. While so, Mr.Govindarajan had fallen in huge arrears of income tax to the tune of Rs.1,79,985/- for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Appropriate Assessment Orders have been passed against Mr.Govindarajan. While he was alive, he did not pay the amount as demanded. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer against the suit property by issuance of notice based on a certificate issued under the Act. This was objected to by the plaintiff stating that the property cannot be attached since the same has got nothing to do with late Mr.Govindarajan. The said objection was rejected by the Tax Officer by passing appropriate orders. As a matter of fact, the property was also attached. In those circumstances, the plaintiff had chosen to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any manner proceeding against the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the property having perfect title and therefore, the proceedings cannot be initiated against the same towards the arrears of tax payable by his father, Mr.ovindarajan.

ii. It was resisted by filing appropriate written statement contending that though it is true that the suit property was in the name of Mrs.Sivagangaiammal, it was in fact purchased in her name by her husband, Mr.Govindarajan, from out of his income. Thus the suit property was held by Mrs.Sivagangaiammal as benami though the property was owned by Mr.Govindarajan. It was further contended that in Ex.B.1 letter, Mr.Govindarajan himself admitted before the Income Tax Officer that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of his wife. Therefore, according to the defendant, the property is liable for attachment and to be proceeded with further as per the provisions of the Act in order to recover the arrears of tax, which had fallen due against Mr.Govindarajan. It is also the further case of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 293 of the Income Tax Act.

iii. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. 55 documents were exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.55. On the side of the defendants, one Mr.Salaiappan, the then Tax Recovery officer was examined as