Dismissing the petition the Court held on the facts of the case what was evident was that the so-called transfer of the undivided share in the land by the two brothers namely the paternal uncles of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner’s father had not been proved. In any case such transfer would be contrary to section 281 of the Act, inasmuch as notice under section 158BD had been initiated against the Hindu undivided family of Milapchand Dada as early as July 9, 2001. The family arrangement pursuant to which transfers were allegedly effected had to be declared void.  There was a recovery certificate issued for the same property in favour of the bank. (AY. 1997-98, 1998-99, 2003-04)