Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1906 (7) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Lower Court: There is a revenue-paying estate Khawaspur Tawzi No. 1692. The plaintiff was the proprietor of an ijmali kalam of 3 annas odd in the estate. The annual sadar jamma was Rs. 213-2 as. The arrears up to June 1901 were Rs. 1,438-13 annas 9 pies. On the 16th September 1901 the property was put up to sale, but there were no bidders. The Collector then proceeded under Section 14 of the sale law and on the 17th September the plaintiff paid off all the arrears; two months after, that is, on the 16th November 1901, the plaintiff was declared to be the purchaser of the ijmali share, Against this order there was no appeal and on the 8th February 1902 the sale was confirmed. But arrears bad again accumulated from September 1901 and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the arrears of the September and the January kids, but that, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not get his sale certificate, which should have been given to him under Section 28 immediately after the sale became fital, unt 1 the 14th of March 1902 the plaintiff was not bound to pay the arrears before the next kisl day, that is the 28th of March 1902 The Collector had therefore no jurisdiction to sell before that date. The sale notification was therefore invalid on the face of it. Again he (the plaintiff) was therefore bound to pay all the arrears that had accrued . within the next kist, that is within 28th of March 1902, and in default the property could then be sold. 4. We can find no authority either in the Act or in the case hid for the ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iction to do this and the plaintiff relies on Sections 59 and 60 of the Contract Law and contends that the Collector had no jurisdiction to deduct the amount for an earlier arrear, though the payment was expressly made for a later arrear. But under the practice in force the Collector was fully competent to set off the amount paid as against the earliest arrear due and the laws regulating the relations of an ordinary creditor and debtor do not apply to the realization of land revenue. 7. It has been urged upon us by the learned vakil for the respondent that this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is not correct; that Eupees 53-9-10p. was due on the 12th January 1902 for the January kist on account of the estate; that the 12th January .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of Government revenue and the well known and the universal practice is to the contrary. The method in which the accounts of land revenue are kept in the Collector's register under rules framed by the Board of Reverie is shown in the extract of the Register, relating to Khawaspur printed at page 12 of the Toper Bock and an account of the arrears is alto shown at p. 75. The plaintiff himself paid Rs. 73 instead of Rs. 53 on the 13th of January evidently to cover old arrears, if any. It has been further argued that, since the plaintiff paid the amount on account of the January kist, the Collector would have in fairness given the plaintiff intimation of the fact that the amount had been credited against the September and January kists t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of 1880 and that under Section 17 of Act XI of 1859 the estate was not liable to sale for arrears accruing during such attachment. It has however been conceded before us that there was no valid attachment subsisting in January 1902, when the arrears for the January kist accrued and that therefore the sale of the 26th of March, which was a sale for the arrears of the January kist, cannot be impugned under Section 17. The learned vakeel for the respondent, without attempting to support the finding of the Lower Court on this point, contended that as the Collector was bound to appropriate the payment of Rs. 1% to the January kist, the sale of the 26th March could not be justified on the basis of the arrears of the September kist, because as reg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates