MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. KALI SEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of Justice T.K. Joseph in S.A. No. 618/53.

(2.) The facts may briefly be stated thus:

(3.) Now the only question before us is that of limitation. The contract between the Municipality and the respondent was made in 1102 when the Travancore Municipal Act (Act 5 of 1095) was in force. S.98 Clause.1 of the above Act reads thus: all monies other than fines & penalties recoverable under this Regulation shall be treated as arrears of Public Revenue within the meaning of Regulation.1 of 1068 and be recovered as such. This Act was superseded by the Travancore District Municipalities Act XXIII of 1116 which was in force when the suit was filed in 1120. S.391 of that Act provides as follows: all arrears of taxes or other payments by way of compensation or otherwise due to a Municipal Council at the time this Act comes into force may be recovered as though they had accrued under this Act. It is the appellants contention that the amount due from the respondent comes under the category of payments otherwise due to Municipality as contemplated in the above Section, and as such the suit is saved from limitation. On the other hand the respondent holds that the money due from him being a debt under a contractual obligation does not come under the category of money recoverable under the Regulation as contemplated in S.98 of Act 5 of 1095. As such a suit for the recovery of the debt became barred three years after the cause of action arose, that is by the year 1106, long before the latter Act came into force, and the claim extinguished in 1106 cannot be revived under the new Act in 1116.