JUDGMENT : 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant-Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan in this Court on 09.05.1994, aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 of the learned trial court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadra in Civil Suit No.45/87 – Balveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiff-Balveer Singh s/o Shri Munshiram for injunction in respect of the suit shop allegedly purchased by him by registered sale deed from one Subhash Chandra s/o Shri Chiranji Lal Tyagi, proprietor of M/s. Subhash Trading Company, Bhadra, who was a defaulter Assessee of the appellant-Commercial Taxes Department to the extent of Rs.4,39,390.57 in the year 1978. 2. The plaintiff-Balveer Singh, a minor of 15 years at that time, allegedly purchased the suit shop in question from his father, Munshi Ram, who on the strength of a power of attorney of defaulter Assessee-Subhash Chandra, sold the suit shop in question for a paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- by a registered sale deed 24.05.1980, when the defaulter Assessee-Subhash Chandra was in default to the tune of Rs.4,39,390.57, as aforesaid. The suit for injunction filed by Balveer Singh against Commercial Taxes Department came to be rejected by the learned trial court deciding both the issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant-Commercial Taxes Department and the trial court held that the said transfer of the shop in question by registered sale deed on 24.05.1980 was to defraud the Revenue, and therefore, the same was void, as hit by Sections 11-AAA and 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). 3. 3. The relevant findings on issues No. 1 & 2 of the learned trial court in the impugned order dated 02.12.1991 are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^fook|d la[;k ,d dks fl} djus dk Hkkj oknh ij fd nkok dh iSjk la[;k ,d esa n’kkZbZ xbZ lhekvksa ds vuqlkj fLFkr nqdku dk oknh l}koh [kjhnnkj gSA ,d laca/k esa oknh cychjflag us crk;k fd mlus 25-5-1980 dks eqU’khjke eq[R;kj dh ekQZr lqHkk”k R;kxh ls fookfnr nqdku [kjhn dh FkhA tks 6]000@& :i;s esa [kjhnhA nqdku ys fy;kA nqdku [knhn djus ds laca/k esa lqHkk”k VªsfMax daiuh dh rjQ fodz; foHkkx dh dksbZ cdk;k Fkh mldks tkudkjh ugha FkhA eqU’khjke ;k lqHkk”k VªsfMax daiuh dh rjQ bl cdk;k yfEcr gksus dh lwpuk mls ugha FkhA ;g Hkh crk;k fd rhu&lk<+s rhu lky igys oks Hkknjk vk;k rks mls fuykeh dk irk pykA rFkk nqdku dqM+d djus ls iwoZ foHkkx }kjk dksbZ uksfVl ;k lwpuk ugha nhA lSy VsDl okyksa dks nqdku dk cS;ukek fn[kk;k FkkA ftjg esa crk;k cS;ukek ds le; oks i<+kbZ djrk FkkA cS;ukek ds eq[R;kj mlds firk eqU’khjke FksA mls /;ku ugha fd mlds firk dh lqHkk”k ;k lqjs’k pUnz ds lkFk dksbZ O;kikj esa Hkkxnhjh Fkh ;k ughaA :i;k mlus firkth dks 24-5-1980 dks fn;kA rglhy esa tc jftLVªkj ds :c: fn;s LVkEi Hkh [kqn }kjk [kjhnuk crk;kA ;g Hkh crk;k fd mlus firkth dk eq[R;kjukek gksuk uk gh i<+k uk gh mlus udy izkIr dhA rFkk eq[R;kj dc ls Fkk mls /;ku ughaA nqdku ij [kqn dk ;k firkth dk uke fy[kk gksuk ugha crk;kA fQj dgk fd nqdku ij jktiqjk ckr fy[kh gqvk gSA tks [kqn us fy[kok;k Fkk rqjar gh fQj dgk fd mlus [kqn us fy[kk FkkA ;g crk;k fd nqdku cS;ukeh rkSj lqHkk”k ds mlds uke ls djus dh ckr xyr gSA rFkk lSy VSDl foHkkx esa dqdhZ ds f[kykQ mUgksaus dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA ih-M-2 mnkjke us crk;k fd cychjflag us 10 lky igys 6]000@& :i;s esa ,d nqdku [kjhnh rFkk cS;ukek vius lkeus fy[kk gksuk crk;kA igpkudrkZ rFkk rglhynkj us dksbZ eq[R;kjukek i<+dj ugha lquk;kA ysu&nsu jftLVªh djus okys ds lkeus gksuk crk;kA izfroknh dh vksj ls bl fcUnq ij dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha gqbZ ysfdu lk{; esa ;g ckr vo’; vkbZ fd 1978&79 o 1979&80 lqHkk”k VªsfMax dEiuh esa okf.kT; dk cdk;k pyk vk jgk FkkA bl fcUnq ij oknh dks Hkh ,rjkt ugha fd dksbZ cdk;k u gks oks Hkh lqHkk”k VªsfMax dEiuh esa jkT; ljdkj dh vksj lqHkk”k VªsfMax dEiuh esa olwyh djokbZ gks ekurs gSaA ysfdu mudk ;g rdZ gS fd mUgsa tkudkjh ugha Fkh rFkk oks ln~Hkkoh [kjhnnkj gSA esjs fopkj ls tgka fdlh O;fDr dh eu fLFkfr ds ckjs esa irk djuk gks rks ml ckjs esa lh/kh lk{; vkuh vlEHko gSA nwljs dh eu dh ckr dsoy ifjfLFkfr;ksa }kjk irk yxk;k tk ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa eq[R;kj vke eqU’khjke }kjk cS;ukek vius iq= cychj flag dks fd;k tkuk crk;k gS rFkk tks cS;ukek U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gqvk ysfdu eq[R;kjukek U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha gqvkA ;g ckr cS;ukek esa Li”V fy[kh gS fd eq[R;kjukek fljlk esa 21-5-1980 dks fy[kk x;k Fkk rFkk 24-5-1980 dks eq[R;kj [kkl LVkEi esa [kjhnnkj cS;ukek vius iq= ds uke 6]000@& :i;s esa fookfnr nqdku dk djok fy;kA Lo;a cychj dk vius firk ls mlh nqdku dk [kjhnuk lgh lkfcr djrk gS fd ysu&nsu fcuk iSlksa ds gqvk D;ksafd oknh cychj flag rFkk xokg mnkjke us :i;s lc jftLVªkj ds lkeus nsuk dgk gS tcfd cS;ukek esa fy[kk x;k gS fd ;g jkf’k is’kxh nh tk pqdh gSA Li”V gS fd nksuksa xokg bl fcUnq ij >wB cksy jgs gSaA ekSds ds oDr oknh dh vk;q 15 o”kZ Fkh rFkk oks Ldwy esa i<+rk FkkA oks nqdku [kjhnus dh gSfl;r esa ugha Fkk rFkk mlus nqdku D;ksa [kjhnh\ ;g ckr oks ugha crk;k ik;kA oknh dk dCtk Hkh nqdku ij gksuk ugha ik;k tkrkA D;ksafd tc eq[R;kjukek fljlk esa fy[kk x;k rFkk mldk ml le; dCtk Hkh ugha fn;k tk ldrk FkkA mlds rhu fnu ckn eq[R;kjukek eq[R;kj vke }kjk mDr nqdku dk dCtk oknh dks nsuk crk;k gS tks fcYdqy vlEHko gS tc eq[R;kj vke dks dCtk ugha feyk rks oks oknh dks dSls ns ldrk FkkA oknh ukSdjh djrk gS nqdku mlds fdl dke dh FkhA oknh us [kqn us crk;k fd rhu&lk<+s rhu lky igys oks Hkknjk vk;k rks dqdhZ dk irk pykA bldk vFkZ ;gh gqvk fd nqdku dk dksbZ mls /;ku ;k vf/kiR; ugha FkkA [kjhnus dk ;k cS;ukek jftLVªh gksus dk ;g vFkZ ugha fd dCtk oknh ds ikl pyk x;k gksA oknh dk ;g dguk fd mls dj cdk;k gksus tkudkjh ugha FkhA rFkk oks ln~Hkkoh dzsrk gSA lqHkk”k pUnz dh QeZ esa 1978&79 o 1979&80 dk lSy VSDl cdk;k py jgk Fkk bldh tkudkjh lqHkk”k pUnz dks gj gkyr esa FkhA D;ksafd os vlSlh FkkA mlus dj fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku viuh lEifr fdlh ,d eq[R;kjukes }kjk cspus dk vf/kdkj fdlh O;fDr dks u nsdj vyx&vyx O;fDr;ksa dks fn;kA ftlls mldh nqHkkZouk Li”V utj vkrh gSA cS;ukek vthZ] :i fuLikfn gksuk Hkh Li”V gksrk gSA dksbZ izfrQy lqHkk”k pUnz dks ugha feykA 21-5-1980 dks eq[R;kjukek fy[kk x;k 24-5-1980 dks cS;ukek fuLikfnr gqvkA [kkl ckr ;g Hkh ns[kus dh gS fd eq[R;kjukek dh izfr U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha gqbZA oknh us [kqn us eq[R;kjukek ugha ns[kkA rks mls D;k irk eq[R;kjukek [kkl dks D;k vf/kdkj feyk D;k ughaA lEifr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr [kjhnnkj dks gfFk;kj gksuk vko’;d gSA vxj lEifr nks”kiw.kZ VkbZVy dh gks rks dzsrk dks nks”kiw.kZ VkbZVy dh feysxkA cS;ukes esa oknh ds fgrksa ds fy;s Li”V fy[kk gSA fd dksbZ >xM+k ;k dkuwuh uqDl gksxh rks ftEesnkj mldk eqofDdy gksxkA lSy VSDl vf/kfu;e] 1954 dh /kkjk ¼,-,-,-½ ds rgr ;g cS;ukek ‘kwU; izkIr gSA D;ksafd ewY;oku izfrQy blesa ugha gSA uksfVl Hkh oknh dks FkkA oknh dks uksfVl gksuk eSa bl vk/kkj ij ikrk gaw fd oknh vius firk ls lEifr fcuk izfrQy ds yh rFkk [kjhnnkj dks tks vko’;d lko/kkuh cjruh pkfg;s Fkh oks ugha cjrh tks lEifr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;g uksfVl gksuk ekuk tk;sxkA firk dks lEifr ds lSy VSDl ds cdk;k dk /;ku vko’;d Fkk D;ksafd eq[R;kj [kkl dks fu;qfDr djus okyksa dks ftl ckr dk Kku Fkk oks Kku eq[R;kj vke dks gksxkA ,slh esjh /kkj.kk gS oknh ;g dguk i;kZIr ugha fd oks ln~Hkkoh dzsrk gS mls Hkyh&Hkkafr lkfcr Hkh djuk Fkk ysfdu oknh bl fcUnq dks fl} djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vr% ;g fook|d oknh ds f[kykQ r; fd;k tkrk gSA fook|d la[;k 2 bls fl} djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij Fkk fd lqHkk”k pUnz us iz’uxr nqdku dk fMdzhnkj dh olwyh ls cpus ds fy, oknh dks fodz; dh rFkk 24-5-1980 ds rgr fookfnr nqdku ds laca/k esa oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ughaA rFkk oknh cychjflag us vius c;ku esa crk;k fd nqdku eksy ysus ds ckn lqHkk”k dks dksbZ gd nqdku ij ugha jgkA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k fd mlus eq[R;kjukek ugha ns[kkA rFkk u gh izfr izkIr dhA bl ckr ls badkj fd;k fd LVkEi blds firk us [kjhns gks tcfd LVkEi mlus [kjhnsA eq[R;kj vke dks viuk firk gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA izfroknh tqxyfd’kksj us Li”V dgk gS fd 1978&79 ,oa 1979&80 esa ,tsalh esa okf.kT; dj cdk;k pyk vk jgk gSA fook|d la[;k 1 dks fu/kkZfjr djrs le; eSaus bl fcUnq dks fu/kkZfjr dj fn;k fd cS;ukek 24-5-1980 ‘kwU; FkkA D;ksafd lqHkk”k pUnz us fczdhdj dh olwyh ls cpus ds fy, oknh dks lEifr fookfnr nqdku csph FkhA D;ksafd eq[R;kjukek 21-5-1980 dks lqHkk”k R;kxh us tkjh fd;k Fkk rFkk dj fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh 1978 ls yafcr py jgh FkhA ftldh tkudkjh lqHkk”k pUnz dks gj gkyr esa FkhA 21-5-1980 ds eq[R;kjukek dh :g ls eqU’khjke us fookfnr nqdku vius iq= dks csp dj nhA fook|d la[;k 1 d fu/kkZj.k esa eSaus ;g ik;k fd dksbZ izfrQy oknh vnk ugha fd;kA ,oa fcuk fdlh dkj.k ls vius firk ls mDr lEifr dk cS;ukek vius gd esa fu”ikfnr djok;kA tc oks fo|kFkhZ Fkk vkSj vk;q 15 o”kZ dh Fkh rks fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds mlus nqdku D;ksa [kjhnh\ lqHkk”k pUnz dks gj gkyr esa ;g irk Fkk fd VSDl dh jkf’k dkQh vf/kd gS rFkk jkT; ljdkj gj gkyr esa VSDl olwy djsxhA rFkk mlus gksf’k;kjhiwoZd vyx&vyx cS;ukesa }kjk viuh nqdku cspus dk vf/kdkj nwljksa dks ns fn;kA ftlesa eqU’khjke Hkh ,d FkkA eqU’khjke us vius iq= dks lEifr cspuk crk;k ftldk izfrQy lkfcr ugha gSA ysfdu gM+cM+h rFkk fcuk fdlh tkap ds oknh us mDr lEifr [kjhnh ;g lkfcr gSA ,slh gM+cM+h rFkk fcuk tkudkjh ds lEifr [kjhnus lgh mi/kkj.kk dh tk;sxhA fd mls dksbZ nks”kiw.kZ VkbZVy dh tkudkjh FkhA mDr lEifr jkT; ljdkj dh dj olwyh ls Hkkj iw.kZ FkhA cS;ukek ds csVs nksuksa i{kdkj esa dksbZ ysu&nsu ugha gqvkA u gh dCtk dh vnyk cnyh gqbZA blfy, oknh dks ln~Hkkoh dzsrk ugha ekuk x;kA 24-5-1980 ds cS;ukesa ds rgr dksbZ vf/kdkj oknh dks izkIr ugha FksaA D;ksafd ;g lEifr Hkkj iw.kZ FkhA rFkk oknh dks Kku gksrs gq, rFkk fcuk izfrQy dks ;g lEifr yhA vr% mls dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrsA mijksDr fcUnq ,sls gSa ftudh tkudkjh dh tM+ rd igqapus ds fy, rF;ksa rFkk oknh dh eu fLFkfr dh dk;Z’kSyh ij fopkj fd;k tkuk Fkk ftlls ;g ckr Li”V gqbZ dh lqHkk”k us dksbZ caVokjk ukek ugha fd;k o ugha dksbZ izfrQy [kjhnnkj ls izkIr fd;kA dsoy cS;ukek ls oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha feyrkA mldk rks dCtk gksuk Hkh ugha ik;k tkrkA ftldk foospu fook|d la[;k 1 esa fd;k tk pqdk gS ;g fook|d izfroknh ds gd esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** 4. The plaintiffs' Civil Appeal No.03/92 – Balveer Singh Vs. The plaintiffs' Civil Appeal No.03/92 – Balveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., however came to be allowed by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge, Nohar on 03.02.1994 with the reversal of the findings of the learned trial court, in the following manner:- ^^fook|d uacj 1 bl ckcr oknh Jh cychjflag ih-MCY;w-1 us dgk gS fd mlus fookfnr nqdku lqjs’k o lqHkk”k ds eq[R;kj eqU’khjke ls gtkj :i;s esa [kjhnh Fkh ftldk cspku i= izn’kZ&1 gSA nqdku [kjhnus ls igys izfroknh uacj 5 us fodz; dj dh jkf’k cdk;k gksus dh mls tkudkjh ugha Fkh og izfroknh uacj 5 dks tkurk gh ughaA mls lSy VSDl foHkkx us Hkh jkf’k cdk;k gksus dh dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA vc izfroknh uacj 5 dk bl nqdku esa dksbZ gd ugha jgk gSA izfrijh{kk esa mlus crk;k fd mlus :i;s jftLVªh ds oDr rglhynkj o nks vknfe;ksa ds :c: eqU’khjke dks fn;s FksA eqU’khjke okyk eq[R;kjukek mlus ns[kk FkkA eq[R;kjukes dh udy mlus ugha yhA eqU’khjke mldk firk gS mlus ;g cS;ukek feydj >wBk fy[kkus ds rF; ls bUdkj fd;k gSA mlds xokg Qrsgflag us cS;ukek vius lkeus fu”ikfnr gksuk dgk gSA ijUrq dgk gS fd :i;s mlds lkeus fn;s x;s Fks rglhynkj ds lkeus ugha fn;s Fks cfYd fy[kki<+h ds le; fn;s FksA blds foijhr izfroknh ds xokg Jh tqxy fd’kksj us dgk gS fd tks nqdkus dqdZ dh gS os vfoHkkftr lEifr Fkh dqdhZ fnukad 30-1-1984 dks dh Fkh nqdkuksa dks cspus dh tkudkjh ugha FkhA bl rjg oknh us nqdku viuh [kjhn ‘kqnk o vius LokfeRo dh gksus ds ckcr fodz; i= is’k gqvk gS vkSj fodz; i= dk ,d xokg Jh Qrsgflag ih-MCY;w-2 Hkh is’k gqvk gS muds c;ku esa :i;s nsus ds LFkku ds ckjs esa vo’; fojks/kkHkkl gSA ijUrq ;g cspku rks dqdhZ ds dkQh igys gks pqdk Fkk fQj ;g cspku i= ,d firk us vius iq= ds uke djok;k gS rks bldk dkj.k Hkh gks ldrk gS fd dbZ ckj cspku rgjhj u djokdj eq[R;kjukek fy[kok nsrs gSA blh dkj.k mls dkuwuh :i nsus ds fy, ;g cspku i= fu”ikfnr djok;k gSA blfy, :i;s ds ysn&nsu ds ckjs esa fojks/kkHkkl vk ldrk gS izR;FkhZ dh ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd ;g cspku i= fn[kkoVh ;k csukeh djok;k x;k gksA ,slh ifjfLFkfr Hkh ugha gS fd ;g ekU;rk yh tk lds fd ;g cS;ukek fn[kkoVh o csukeh gksA vr% bl nkos ds fy, rks bruk lkfcr gS fd fookfnr nqdku dk oknh l}kfod [kjhnjkj gS mls izfroknh uacj 5 us dj dh jkf’k cdk;k gksus dh tkudkjh gksus ckcr dksbZ Hkh lk{; ugha gSA vr% mlds }kjk ;g [kjhn l}kfod dh dgh tkosxhA ;ksX; U;k;ky; us bl fook|d ds fu.kZ; esa dbZ dYiukvksa dk lgkjk fy;k gS vkSj vuko’;d lansg fd;k gSA tc rd ;g lkfcr ugha gks fd ;g cspku dj dh jkf’k dks olwy u gksus ds fy, fcuk izfrQy fn;s fcuk l}kouk ds [kjhnk x;k gks rHkh jktLFkku lSYl VSDl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 ,-,-,- esa cspku ‘kwU; gksrk gSA ;gk¡ foHkkx dh dksbZ ,slh lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g Li”V gks fd oknh dks cdk;k dj dh tkudkjh Fkh vkSj ;g cspku fcuk l}kouk ds izfrQy ds djok;k x;k gksA vr% ;ksX; U;k;ky; dk bl fook|d esa fu.kZ;@dkuwu o rF;ksa ds vuqlkj ugha gSA vr% bl fook|d ;ksX; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr djrs gq, ;g fu.kZ; fn;k tkrk gS fd oknh nqdku dk l}kfod [kjhnnkj gSA fook|d uacj 2 bl ckjs esa fook|d uacj 1 esa fopkj fd;k tk pqdk gS ;g fook|d mlh ds [k.Mu dk gSA fook|d uacj 1 esa ekuk x;k gS fd oknh l}kfod [kjhnnkj gS vkSj ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd ;g fodz; dj dh olwyh ls cpus ds fy, tkucw>dj ds djok;k x;k gksA vr% ;g fook|d izfroknh ds fo:} vfHkfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA ;ksX; U;k;ky; us bl fook|d ds fu.kZ; esa Hkh dYiuk dk lgkjk fy;k gSA ,lMh@& ¼dSyk’k pUnz tSu½ vij ftyk ,oa ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k] uksgj ¼Jhxaxkuxj½** 5. Being aggrieved, the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan filed the present second appeal before this Court, and while admitting this appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law on 02.08.1996 for consideration by this Court:- “1. Whether the learned appellate court has misread the evidence as regards the issues No.1 & 2 and erroneously reversed the finding of the trial court? 2. Relief.” 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant-Commercial Taxes Department, Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Dinesh Godara urged that the transfer by father Munshiram to his own minor son, Balveer, who was only 15 years of age at the time on 24.05.1980 was void, as he cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser, ignorant of the default of Subhash Chandra towards the Commercial Taxes Department of the revenue of the sales tax due from him and on the principle of “caveat emptor”, and such a sale was bound to be treated as void and the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the suit of the purchaser-Balveer Singh, while the appellate court has reversed the well reasoned findings of the learned trial court, without assigning proper reasons in the impugned appellate order. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Affloat Textiles India Private Limited, (2009) 11 SCC 18 . 7. No one appears on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and other proforma defendants, including the defaulter Assessee, despite service, though names of Mr. N.K. Goyal and Mr. P.D. Vaishnav is shown in the cause list and the case was listed at item No.1 of the top of the list. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal of the defendant-Commercial Taxes Department deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law framed above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against the plaintiffs-respondents and other proforma defendants. 9. Sections 11-AAA and 11-AAAA, which make the liability under the Act, as the first charge on the assets held by the Assessee and Transfer to avoid Revenue as void, are quoted below for ready reference:- “11-AAA. 9. Sections 11-AAA and 11-AAAA, which make the liability under the Act, as the first charge on the assets held by the Assessee and Transfer to avoid Revenue as void, are quoted below for ready reference:- “11-AAA. Transfer to defraud revenue void.-Where during the pendency of any proceedings under this Act, any dealer creates a charge on or part with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, or any other mode of transfer whatsoever, of his immovable property in favour of any other person with the intention to defraud the revenue, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum payable under this Act by the dealer as a result of the completion of the said proceedings: Provided that such charge or transfer shall not be void if made for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the proceeding under this Act. 11-AAAA. Liability under this Act to be the first charge.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount of tax, penalty, interest and any other sum if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer or such person.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Affloat Textiles India Private Limited (supra) also laid down that the maxim of “caveat emptor” says that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to making the purchase. Upon a sale of goods, the general rule with regard to their nature or quality is caveat emptor, so that in the absence of fraud, the buyer has no remedy against the seller for any defect in the goods not covered by some condition or warranty, expressed or implied. 11. Paras 13 to 16 of the said judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Affloat Textiles India Private Limited (supra), are quoted below for ready reference:- “It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of SIL in question. The maxim “caveat emptor” is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. Caveat emptor means “let the purchaser beware”. Affloat Textiles India Private Limited (supra), are quoted below for ready reference:- “It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of SIL in question. The maxim “caveat emptor” is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. Caveat emptor means “let the purchaser beware”. It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious, or which might have been known by proper diligence. Caveat emptor does not mean either in law or in Latin that the buyer must take chances. It means that the buyer must take care. Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule in contract. A vendor is under no duty to communicate the existence of even a latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist Caveat emptor qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit is a maxim meaning “let a purchaser beware : who ought not to be ignorant that he is purchasing the rights of another”. (Paras 13 to 16) Applying the maxim, it is held that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner. Upon a sale of goods the general rule with regard to their nature or quality is caveat emptor, so that in the absence of fraud, the buyer has no remedy against the seller for any defect in the goods not covered by some condition or warranty, expressed or implied. It is beyond all doubt that, by the general rules of law there is no warranty of quality arising from the bare contract of sale of goods, and that where there has been no fraud, a buyer who has not obtained an express warranty, takes all risk of defect in the goods, unless there are circumstances beyond the mere fact of sale from which a warranty may be implied. No one ought in ignorance to buy that which is the right of another. The buyer according to the maxim has to be cautious, as the risk is his and not that of the seller. (Paras 15 and 17)” 12. No one ought in ignorance to buy that which is the right of another. The buyer according to the maxim has to be cautious, as the risk is his and not that of the seller. (Paras 15 and 17)” 12. In the present case, the learned trial court had given a categorical finding that the sale in question was not bona fide, as the seller Munshiram was father of the purchaser, a minor son Balveer Singh aged 15 years only at that time and was a student only, on the strength of a power of attorney of the Assessee-Subhash Chandra, who was the Assessee in default of the Commercial Taxes Department, and the said Power of Attorney was not even produced before the learned trial court. It was apparently, therefore, a device to defraud the Revenue by transferring the shop in question owned by the defaulter Assessee through his own power of attorney, Munshiram in favour of his own minor son, who does not have the capacity to enter into a valid contract. Such well reasoned and cogent findings of the learned trial court were simply brushed aside by the learned appellate court by holding that the purchaser Balveer did not and could not be attributed without any knowledge of such dues of the Commercial Taxes Department having first charge over the suit property in question. 13. The learned appellate court has apparently fallen into an error in not appreciating not only the nature of the transaction and the relevant facts, but also failed to take note of the clear mandate of law contained in the provisions of Sections 11-AAA and 11-AAAA of the Act of 1994. If such a make-belief sale of property under the first charge of Commercial Taxes Department was to be allowed to avoid and defraud the realization of the tax revenues, it would become very easy for the tax defaulters to avoid payment of such due taxes to the Government. On the face of it, the sale deed dated 24.05.1980 in the present case in favour of a minor son by the power of attorney of the proprietor of defaulter Assessee-Firm, should have raised a doubt in the mind of the learned appellate court about its genuineness. The sale was for paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- for the registered sale deed executed by the power of attorney, Munshiram in favour of his own minor son. The sale was for paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- for the registered sale deed executed by the power of attorney, Munshiram in favour of his own minor son. In these circumstances, no other conclusion, than the one drawn by the learned trial court that the transfer was made to avoid and defraud the Revenue, could have been drawn by the learned appellate court. 14. The findings of the learned appellate court and the manner, in which it has set aside the well reasoned findings of the learned trial court are, therefore, clearly perverse and cannot be sustained in law. 15. The present second appeal of the defendant-appellant-Commercial Taxes Department deserves to be allowed and answering the substantial question of law framed above in favour of the appellant-Commercial Taxes Department and against the plaintiff-respondents and other proforma defendants, including the defaulter Assessee-M/s. Subhash Trading Company, Bhadra through its Proprietor Shri Subhash Chandra, the present second appeal is allowed. The registered sale deed dated 24.05.1980 is held to be void and non est in law and the appellant-Commercial Taxes Department shall be free to realize its dues from the attachment and auction of the said suit shop in question. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts below forthwith.