JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner, whereby, the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Bikaner. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : respondent No.1 Smt. Chanda Devi filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant with the averments that certain recovery was raised by the defendant department towards M/s. Sohan Lal Manak Chand and the suit property was attached and, therefore, an objection was raised by her stating that the property attached was bequeathed by her father-in-law Shri Manak Lal by way of Will dated 17.09.2004 and the plaintiff had nothing to do with the firm M/s. Sohan Lal Manak Chand, whose proprietor was Laxmi Narayan. 3. A written statement was filed by the appellant, inter alia, claiming that the suit property was ancestral property of defendant No.3 Laxmi Narayan, who was plaintiff's son and the said fact was disclosed by Laxmi Narayan to the department and, therefore, the said property was attached; it was claimed that the property has been transferred with a view to deprive the department from recovering dues from the said immovable property. 4. The trial court framed four issues and after evidence was led by the parties, it came to the conclusion that mandatory injunction was sought by the plaintiff, however, no prayer was made seeking declaration of the notice dated 18.08.2006 (Exhibit-3) as null and void which was the main relief and, therefore, relief regarding injunction cannot be granted and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed first appeal before the District Judge, Bikaner, who by the impugned judgment and decree came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial court regarding non-maintainability of the suit on account of not seeking declaration regarding notice (Exhibit-3) was baseless as the case of the plaintiff was that she has nothing to do with the demand against the firm, which was a proprietorship of Laxmi Narayan and her property had wrongly been attached and, therefore, without seeking a declaration qua the notice (Exhibit- 3), she was entitled to maintain the suit for injunction. The appellate court also came to the conclusion that the property was owned by plaintiff and the same could not be attached towards the dues of defendant No.3 Laxmi Narayan and, consequently, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and directed setting aside of attachment of the suit property. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the execution of Will by Manak Lal in favour of the plaintiff was clearly hit by provisions of Section 51 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ('the Act') and, therefore, the appellate court was not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff supported the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 51 of the Act had no application and the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. The undisputed facts, which have come on record are that the property in question was owned by Manak Lal plaintiff's father-in-law and Bulaki Das his brother, which was partitioned by way of registered partition deed dated 06.02.2003, whereby, the suit property came to the share of Manak Lal. Said Manak Lal executed a registered Will dated 17.09.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and, in view of the Will, having been executed in her favour, the suit property after the death of Manak Lal vested in her. The appellant-defendant failed to place any document on record to show that the suit property was owned by Laxmi Narayan, the proprietor of the firm, against whom, the demand regarding sales tax was outstanding and/or that Manak Lal, who owned the property and executed Will in favour of the plaintiff had anything to do with the said firm. The only plea taken by the department is that Laxmi Narayan, the proprietor of the firm, informed them that the suit property was joint and that he had a share in the said property and, therefore, the same was attached. Such a plea by the department based on so called oral statement of a assessee/dealer was absolutely without any basis and the department failed to prove the same. Such a plea by the department based on so called oral statement of a assessee/dealer was absolutely without any basis and the department failed to prove the same. On the other hand, based on the documents produced by the plaintiff, it was proved that the property was owned by Manak Lal and was bequeathed in plaintiff's favour. Provisions of Section 51 of the Act reads thus:- "51. Certain transfers to be void. - Where during the pendency of any proceeding for the determination of any liability to tax, interest, penalty or other sum under this Act, if any dealer or a person against whom such proceeding is pending, creates a charge on, or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or any other mode of alienation whatsoever, of any of his assets in favour of any other person, such charge, transfer, gift or alienation shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax, interest, penalty or other sum payable by such dealer or person, which arises as a result of the said proceeding, except when - (i) such dealer or person has no notice of such proceeding pending against him; and (ii) such transfer is made for adequate valuable consideration." 10. A bare look at the said provision reveals that if any dealer or a person against whom proceeding is pending, creates a charge on, or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or any other mode of alienation whatsoever, of any of his assets in favour of any other person, which charge, transfer, gift or alienation shall be void against any claim in respect of any tax, interest, penalty or other sum payable by such dealer. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, Manak Lal was neither a dealer nor a person against whom any proceeding was pending and, therefore, even if the act of executing the Will is taken to be an act of transfer, though the same in terms of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be termed as a transfer, as the same necessarily requires a transaction between two living persons, the provisions of Section 51 of the Act had absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******