AITA VAIKUNTAM Vs. JAMMIKONTA TOWN MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,500 with interest thereon. The plaintiff's case was that the 2nd defendant was the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 5th March, 1953 for collecting toll tax within Jammikunta for a sum of Rs. 6,000 I.G. for the period from the 1st April, 1953 to 30th March, 1954. The third defendant stood surety for him. The second defendant subsequently filed a petition on 11th June, 1953 before the concerned authority expressing his desire to assign the contract in favour of the appellant. The respondent herein accepted that assignment and subsequently the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 3,500 to the respondent, and a balance of Rs. 2,500 is recoverable from the appellant. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit which was filed on 16th August 1960 was within limitation because of the provisions of section128 of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act (Act XVIII of 1956) hereinafter referred to as the new Act. The appellant filed a written statement contending that on account of draught the crops failed and the traffic of animal carts diminished. The appellant incurred a loss and he applied to the respondent to write off the balance of Rs. 2,500. A resolution was passed by the respondent -municipality on 21st June, 1965 writing off the balance recoverable from the appellant. This resolution was approved be the Government and the Government issued a G.O. Rt. No. 761, L.A., dated 8th August, 1958 remitting the balance. A copy of the said Government Order was communicated to the appellant on 28th August, 1958 and therefore the appellant was discharged from his obligation under the contract. It is also stated by the appellant in the written statement that because of certain factions in the town, some people represented to the Government against the earlier order and the Government passed another G.O.Ms. No. 1136, dated 30th April, 1959 cancelling the earlier Order. According to the appellant the latter Government Order is inoperative and the respondent is not entitled to any interest. He also raised the plea that the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of the repealed Hyderabad Town Municipalities Act (XXVII of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the old Act.

(2.) THE trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) TO what relief?