STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. AMRATLAL AMBARAM MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals raise a common question about the proper construction of the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932. It would be enough to state the facts in S.A. No. 253 of 1955 in order to understand the question.

(2.) ONE Amratlal Ambaram Modi, who is respondent No. 1 to this appeal, purchased on May 21, 1931, certain property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2049, 2050 and 2050/1 from the original owner. Amratlal has two brothers, Cbiraanlal and Narandas.Chimanlal is respondent No. 1 to appeal No. 254, while Narandas is respondent No. 1 to appeal No. 255. Like Amratlal,Chimanlal purchased on the same day property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2142 and 2142/1 from the original owner, while Narandas purchased on the same day certain property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2143 and 2143/1 from the original owner. These properties stood in the municipal records in the names of the respective brothers. Till the year 1947 the UrbanImmoveable Property Tax was assessed separately according to the valuation made by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at the rate of3 1/2 per cent, on the rental value. After 1947 -48, however, the tax was assessed at the rate of 7 percent, per annum on the footing that the properties owned by the three brothers constituted one building for the purpose of taxation and so the three brothers filed three different suits challenging the taxation made by the State of Bombay, which is defendant No. 1 in the suit, under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932.

(3.) THE Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which was defendant No. 2 in the suit, did not file a written statement, but the suit was contested by the State of Bombay and it was contended that although the properties were separately purchased by the three brothers, the whole building as such was liable to be assessed under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, and the properties being one building, the taxation at the rate of 7 percent, on the aggregate annual rental value was proper and the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the refund.