PARVATIPURAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. GANTA SEETARAMA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law, viz., of limitation is Involved in these Civil Revision Petitions and Transferred Appeals. The Civil Revision Petitions have arisen out of small cause suits and Transferred Appeals out of original suits which were disposed of by the District Munsif, Parvathlpuram by a common judgment. The plaintiffs in all the suits are rate-payers owning house properties in Parvathlpuram Municipality. The suits are filed to recover some amounts paid by the rate-payers to the Municipality under a levy which was subsequently found to be illegal and void. Subsequent to the levy in question by the Municipality in a representative capacity the rate payers filed a suit. O. S. No. 26 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Parvathipuram, for a declaration that the levy was illegal and invalid. The District Munsif's Court decreed the suit and it was confirmed in the appeal fited by the Municipality in A.S.No.11 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. There after the present suits are filed by the ratepayers alleging that under the levy the Municipality collected the tax amounts illegally and that they made those payments under a mistake of law without knowing at that time that the levy was illegal and they came to know abouc the illegality of the levy only after A.S. No. 11 of 1963, mentioned above, was disposed of.

(2.) The Municipality contested the suits alleging inter a/fa that the suits are barred by time. The finding in A.S.No.11 of 1963 holding that the levy was illegal and void has become final There is no controversy now that the tax amounts in question, for the refund of which the suits are filed, were illeglly collected. So for as the suits with which we are concerned in this batch of revision petitions and transferred appeals, the only defence of the Municipality is that they are barred by time not having been filed within three years from the date of the cause of action for the suits, as provided under Article 24 (under old Art. 62) of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to the rate-payers the suits come under Article 113 (under old Article 96). The further case of the Municipality is that even if Article 113 applies the suits are barred by time having been filed three years after the finding of the District Munsiff's Court in O.S No. 26 of 1961 holding that the levy and the collections were Illegal and void. The lower court found that Article 24 does not apply and Article 113 only applies to the present suits and as provided under Article 113 the suits were filed within time. Aggrieved with that finding of the lower Court, the Municipality has filed the above revision petitions in this court against small cause suits and appeals in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram, against original suits The appeals filed in the Sub-Court, Parvathipuram. have been subsequently transferred to this court for disposal along with the civil revision petitions as common question of law is involved in buth and af'er transfer they were re-numbered in this Court as transferred appeals which are mentioned above.

(3.) Under Article 24 of the Limitation Act three years time is fixed for a suit to recover money received by the defendant for the plaintlffs's use from the time when the money is received. It is provided under Article 113 that any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule three years time is prescribed from the date when the right to sue accrues. This is a residuary article. In the old Limitation Act there was a specific article, Article 96, with regard to suits forrellefs on the ground of mistake. Therein for relief on the ground of mistake three years time was prescribed for a suit from the time when the mistake becomes known to the plainciff. There is no corresponding article in the presant Limitation Act. Therefore, suits which would come under Article 96 of the Old Limitation Act would also come under the present residuary Article 113. So far as the contention of the Municipality thae Article 24 applies to the present suits is concerned, there is not much difficulty. Article 24 does not in terms apply to the present suits The learned Advocate General who appeared for the Munlcipality has conceded that the earlier decisions like State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gangaraju (I) AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh, p. 485 and Bhuswal Municipality vs. Nusserwanji (2) AIR 1940 Bombay, p. 252 where it was held that to a suit for recovery of money illegally collected by the Government old Article62 applies are no longer good law in view of the subsequent Supreme Court cases.