9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was then found by the plaintiff that three payments made by him were not given credit to and he instituted the suit for compelling the State of Travancore-Cochin to give credit to this sum and also to restrain the State from recovering the same over again. It was contended by the State that the receipts relied on by the plaintiff were not in the prescribed form and that the disputed payments were not entered in the accounts. It was therefore pleaded that the payments even if true could not be given effect to. The court below found that a sum of Rs. 1,900 was paid by the plaintiff to the Proverthicar, Lalam Pakuthy, that the receipts (Exhibits F, F1, G and H) evidencing these payments were not in the prescribed form and that the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Collector or the Tahsildar, the Proverthicar or the Village Accountant or any other officer whom the Government may authorise in that behalf by notification in the Gazette, the revenue due from him on or before the day fixed for payment, and the payer shall be entitled to a receipt signed by the officer concerned for the payment so made. In cases where the payment is made by a person on behalf of the land- holder such receipt shall also contain the name of the person who makes the payment." This section makes it clear that payment of revenue to the Proverthicar is a valid payment. It also provides that the person making the payment is entitled to a receipt signed by the officer to whom such payment is made. The section does not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were validly made to him and such payments constitute a valid discharge so far as the plaintiff is concerned. 4.. As regards the last ground, namely, that the State cannot be made liable for the fraudulent act of the Proverthicar, we are unable to accept the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. The Proverthicar was acting within the scope of his authority, and if he embezzled the money later, the State cannot plead that the payment is not valid so long as it is not alleged or proved that the plaintiff was a party to such fraud. The fraud, if at all, was committed by the Proverthicar after receipt of the amounts and the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the same. In these circumstances, it must be held that the payment of Rs. 1,900 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
