9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 167, Bengal Municipal Act regarding statutory charge for arrear rates on premises. Enforcement of charge against bona fide purchasers without notice. Scope of suits under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. for declaration of charge decree. Analysis: The case involves two appeals arising from suits under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. for establishing the plaintiff Municipality's right to proceed against certain holdings. Defendants 4 to 10 claimed they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and challenged the attachment of properties in execution of decrees obtained by the Municipality for arrear rates. The central issue was whether a statutory charge existed on the premises under Section 167, Bengal Municipal Act for the arrear rates and if the earlier auction purchase by defendants 4 to 10 was subject to this charge. The lower appellate court modified the decrees, holding that the decretal amounts were a first charge on the holdings but not enforceable against defendants 4 to 10 personally. The key question revolved around whether the decrees obtained by the Municipality in 1940 constituted charge decrees. The court emphasized that a charge decree is essential for enforcing a charge against the property, and the Municipality failed to obtain such a decree before the claims were made. The court referred to precedents like Akhoy Kumar v. Corporation of Calcutta, emphasizing that a charge does not involve a transfer of interest and cannot be enforced against bona fide purchasers without notice. It was established that the purchasers were duty-bound to make inquiries about arrears due to the Municipality before acquisition, failing which constructive notice could be imputed to them. The court upheld the decision that defendants 4 to 10 purchased the property subject to the charge of arrear rates. Regarding the scope of suits under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C., the court clarified that such suits are limited to determining if a charge decree already exists against the property. In this case, since no charge decree was obtained by the Municipality, they were not entitled to enforce a charge against defendants 4 to 10 in the present suits. Consequently, the decrees passed by the lower appellate court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, dismissing the suits with costs. In a concurring opinion, Justice S.C. Lahiri agreed with the decision, and no separate order was deemed necessary on the cross-objections raised. The judgment highlights the importance of obtaining a charge decree for enforcing statutory charges and emphasizes the duty of purchasers to make inquiries about potential arrears before acquiring property subject to municipal taxes.
|
