1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.415 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1044 OF 2008 Husenbi Salim Shaikh ...Appellant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, adv. For the Appellant. Ms.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 11th September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appelalnt. 2 This is the second appeal by the original plaintiff. To state in brief, the appellant is the owner of suit property bearing city survey no. 2260/25 admeasuring 500 sq.ft. Situated at Village : Akaluj. It is a building consisting of ground plus first floor. Plaintiff claimed that she is running beer bar in the name and style as ‘Blue Star Beer Bar and Permit Room’ in the ground floor. According to her, first floor of the building was gifted by her to her son, defendant no.4 and he has been running business of lodge in the name and style as ‘Swagat Lodge’ for which he has obtained necessary permission from the Additional Collector, 2 Solapur. The respondent no.2 and 3, who are officers of the Excise Department, issued impugned notice dated 1.3.2001 to the plaintiff/appellant to pay taxes for whole of the business at the ground plus first floor for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.26/01 seeking declaration that said notice is invalid and also she sought perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant nos.1 to 3 from recovery of taxes as per the said notice. No written statement was filed by the defendants. The trial Court directed the appellant to lead evidence to prove her claim. She produced the evidence. The trial Court dismissed her suit. Plaintiff filed regular civil appeal no.182/04. That was also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal. 3 From the record, it appears that plaintiff is the owner of the said building consisting of ground plus first floor. According to her, she had made oral gift of the first floor of the building to her son. On the basis of oral gift deed, he had filed regular civil suit no.139/01 for declaration of his title. The present plaintiff did not appear and the exparte decree was passed in favour of her son in that suit. It appears that said suit was filed after receipt of the impugned notice and it was the collusive suit. Therefore, no cognizance could be taken of that decree. It 3 is true that under the Muslim law, oral gift is permitted if it is accompanied by delivery of possession. However, as far as State is concerned, tax can be collected from the registered owner of the property. Admittedly, property continued to be in the name of the plaintiff and on the basis of alleged gift deed, no mutation entry had taken place prior to issue of the impugned notice. Gift was not made by registered document nor its intimation was given to the respondent no.1 to 3 prior to issue of the notice. In view of these circumstances, no fault could be found with the notice because State authorities could collect the taxes from the person, who was registered owner. Therefore, I find no fault , illegality or perversity with the findings of the Courts below. No question of law is involved in the present appeal. 4 Therefore, appeal as well as civil application stand dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)