9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (10) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttee recovered a sum of ₹ 344/5/- as house-tax from the plaintiff who is the Mahant of Akhara New Panchayati, Amritsar, for the years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1943-49. On 10-8-1949 a suit for perpetual injunction was brought by the present plaintiff restraining the Committee from realising any house-tax on Akhara property which was granted on 1-2-1951. The Committee refunded the tax for the year 1948-49 which was ₹ 91/13/-, but they refused to return the balance. The plaintiff thereupon brought a suit for the recovery of this money alleging that this tax was 'ultra vires' and the tax had been illegally recovered from the plaintiff. The suit was defended on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge has held that the suit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Article 62, Limitation Act which is as follows; The question to be decided is whether the money which was paid to the defendant-Committee by the plaintiff can come within the phrase money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use . The petitioner relies upon several decided cases in all of which Article 62 was applied to taxes recovered by or paid to Municipal Committees when they were not so due. In -- 'The Rajputana Malwa Rly. Co-Operative Stores, Ltd. v. Ajmer Municipal Board 32 All 491, a Municipal Board in disregard of certain lawful orders levied upon a Company certain sums by way of octroi duty over and above what they were legally entitled to levy. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bom 252, where it was held that Article 96 applies when the cause of action is applicable to all citizens is not and cannot itself form the basis of a cause of action. Hence, a suit to recover certain amount of Municipal tax on the ground that it was illegally levied is governed by Article 62 and not by Article 96. It will be noticed that the learned Judge took into consideration the allegations made in the plaint. In the present case no question of mistake was ever raised in the pleadings of the parties. Counsel then relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in -- 'India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Hospet ILR (1943) Mad 521, where it was held by a Division Bench of that Court that Article 62, Limitation Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... English action in that form; consequently the Article ought to apply wherever the defendant has received money which in justice and equity belongs to the plaintiff under circumstances which in law render the receipt of it, a receipt by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff. As pointed out by Lord Mansfield C. J., in -- 'Moses v. Macferlan', (1760) 2 Burr 1005, this form of action lies for money paid by mistake, or upon a consideration, which happens to fail, or for money got through imposition (express or implied) or extortion of oppression or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances, in other words, this form of action would be maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinciple which is applicable is the one laid down by Mookerjee J. in the case referred to above rather the present one. 9. Reference was then made to 'Tofa Lal Das v. Moinuddin Mirza 4 Pat 448, where it was said that in cases where the relief is based on mistake the period of limitation is to run from the time when the mistake is first discovered. But it was also held that where a Patnidar sues the landlord for return of the money paid in excess of the amount of cesses, the relief being based on mistake, Article 62 was applicable and not Article 96. This case, in my opinion, does not help the plaintiff in any way. 10. Reference was next made to -- 'Gorakhpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Nariman and Co.', AIR 1948 All 75, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
