HINDUPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. MEHARUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the Hindupur Municipal Council represented by its Commissioner and Special Officer. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Ananthapur in Appeal Suit No. 14 of 1980.

(2.) One Shariffa Bee was the owner of the plaint schedule property situate within the municipal limits of Hindupur. She was in arrears of municipal tax and the petitioner herein filed a small cause suit and obtained a money decree against the said Shariffa Bee. It would appeal that the said Shariffa Bee was also owing certain moneys to the Hindupur Co-operative Town Bank Limited. As she failed to discharge the loan the said bank obtained an award and the property was sold in E.P. No. 163/61-62 in execution of the award of the bank. The bank purchased the property in auction sale on 19-3-1964 and was in possession. On 2-9-1968, the said bank sold the property to the respondent herein. Long after the purchase of the property by the respondent, it appears the petitioner attached the property in question on 7-12-1977. The respondent the reupon filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court, Hindupur, praying that the attachment of the building in question made by the petitioner herein be lifted. The trial Court, after enquiry, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court against the dismissal of the application to lift the attachment, the respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ananthapur in Appeal Suit No. 14 of 1980. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the trial Court, in allowing the appeal, the learned District Judge held that the respondent herein purchased the properly on 2-9-1968 from the Co-operative Town Bank without knowledge that the re was any arrear of municipal lax in respect of the properly and, the refore, the matter is clearly governed by the provisions of Section 100 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. Before the learned District Judge, the Petitioner-Municipality contended that under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, 1965, the municipal tax payable in respect of any property is a first charge and, the refore, the Municipality has a right to recover the tax against the property enforcing the first charge. A reference was also made to Sec. 93 of the Act, which sets out the obligations of the transferor and transferee to give notice of transfer. Reliance, was placed on sub-section (4) of Section 93 in support of the contention that the liability of the transferee lor the payment of municipal tax is co-extensive with the liability of the transferor and, consequently, the petitioner herein cannot resile from the legal obligation to pay the municipal tax, which was in arrear and in respect of which the Municipality obtained a decree.

(3.) The learned District Judge rejected the contentions of the Petitioner-Municipality holding that the respondent herein purchased the property without knowledge that the re was any arrear of municipal tax and, the refore, she is entitled to protection under Section 100 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. The learned Judge declined to countenance the contention that, by reason of the fact that municipal tax is made a first charge against the property under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, a right is vested in the Municipality to collect the tax from bona fide purchasers without notice. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that the present revision petition has been filed by the Municipality-Petitioner herein.