Ramaprasada Rao, J.
These two writ petitions are absolutely misconceived. Mr. C. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, states before us that the relevant facts which arise in these petitions may be summarised thus : ' It is the intention of the petitioner to negotiate for the best price for his properties and in such circumstances if the petitioner has paid the taxes due he need not fill up Form No. 34A from items 10 to 17 prescribed under the Income-tax Act of 1961, and that he is entitled to issuance of the certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a matter of course.' It is fundamental that law should be applied only to the given existing state of affairs and facts. Courts are not inclined and generally should not engage itself with hypothetical problems and apply the law thereto. In our view, the admitted fact in this case is there is no concluded sale of property as is popularly understood between thepetitioner and the buyer, but the petitioner is only intending to sell his property. The question, therefore, is whether Section 230A of the Act and the consequential prescription in Form No. 34 A would be attracted. Section 230A imposes a restriction on registration of transfers of immovable properties in certain cases, to wit, if the value of the property is more than Rs. 50,000, no registering officer appointed under the Act shall register such document unless the Income-tax Officer certified that such person purporting to sell, has either paid or made satisfactory provision for payment of all existing liabilities under the Income-tax Act and other tax laws enumerated in Section 230A(1)(a). Under Sub-section (2) of Section 230A, the application for the certificate mentioned in Sub-clause (1) shall be made by the person purporting to sell and intending to register the document of transfer and it shall be in the prescribed form. Rule 44A of the Act prescribes the form which is ordinarily termed as the tax clearance certificate for registration in certain cases. The form is Form No. 34A, Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Clauses 10 to 17 in Form No. 34A need not be filled up by a person specifically described by the legislature as one who purports to transfer the property worth more than Rs. 50,000 and desires to effect a registration of the said document. It is unnecessary for us in this case to elucidate upon the intendment of both the law as laid down in Section 230A as also the mandatory prescription in Rule 44A of the Rules. It is not also equally necessary for us to consider in the instant case whether Rules 10 to 17 would in any way cause prejudice to the person placed in the position of the petitioner. This is so because the petitioner is a person who is negotiating with others and attempting to find a purchaser for the property and has not presumably made up his mind to sell the property either. This is not a case in which a person purports to transfer the property valued at more than Rs. 50,000 and that such person has approached the registering officer under the Indian Registration Act of 1908, to cause the registration of the said document and it is not equally a circumstance wherein a certificate as prescribed in Section 230A(2) has been called for by the registering officer in connection with such registration. The primordial requisites which are conditions precedent for the applicability of the law as envisaged in Section 230A of the Act are singularly absent. The rules and the forms follow the prescribed conditions laid down in Section 230A. If, therefore, the main Section 230A is not applicable to the facts of this case, it follows that the petitioner is not a person affected and is not one who could apply for a certificate questioning the operation and applicability of Section 230A of the Act and the form made thereunder. These two writ petitions are therefore dismissed.