LATUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SONAJI MANOHARRAO DURUGKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54/1974 against two different Defendants and these to different Defendants have preferred these two appeals separately and that is why, they are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. These two appeals arise out of the following facts : - On 2nd July, 1970, plaintiff (who is Respondent No. 1 in both these appeals) purchased some immoeable property within the limits of Latur Municipal Council. At the time when the registered deed of sale was registered in the Registration Office at Latur, the Registering Officer recovered from the plaintiff Rs. 406 by way of transfer-tax equivalent to two per cent of the value mentioned in the Transfer Deed and the plaintiff alleged that the Registering Officer had no right to recover this transfer-tax, which was, admittedly, ultimately to go to the coffers of the Municipal Council and hence, plaintiff filed a suit both against the State Government and the Latur Municipal Council for recovery of this amount. He contended that after the repeal of the Hyderabad Stamp Act and of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956, the State Government had no right to recover this tax and therefore, the recovery is illegal.

(2.) Both the Defendants by separate written statements contended that this tax was rightly and legally recovered and the recovery of this tax was saved by section 346 (i) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, which was a saving clause in this respect. I shall refer to the detailed contentions in due course of my judgment.

(3.) As the question was pure question of law the parties did not lead any evidence and after hearing the Counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the tax was illegally recovered. He held further that the suit was a representative suit. He held also that the notice under section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, was valid and proper. He held that Defendant No. 1 proved that the tax on transfer of immoveable property imposed under the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. He held that Defendant No. 1 proved that the tax was being collected in the nature of surcharge on the stamp duty and consequently, he dismissed plaintiff's suit but directed the parties to bear their own costs.