NABADWIP BHAJAN ASRAM Vs. COMMISSIONERS OF NABADWIP MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, the Nabadwip Bhajan Ashram, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860) and described as a religious and charitable institution, instituted a suit against the Commissioners of the Nabadwip Municipality praying for a declaration that certain holdings belonging to it and situated in Wards I and II of the Municipality are not liable to he assessed to rates under Section 124 (1) (h) of the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932) on the ground that the said holdings are exclusively used as places of worship to which the public have the right of free access. It was stated that the object of the Ashram was to promote the religious advancement of the Hindus by the installation of deities and by providing places for holding bhajan, kirtan etc., and that congregational namkirtan to which the public had free access, was held daily at the main Ashram comprised in three holdings numbered as 18, 19 and 20 of Ward II and at its branch comprised in holdings Nos. 61, 64, 86 and 101 of Ramchandrapur Ward (No. I) of the Municipality. It was further stated that in addition to these holdings being places of worship they were used for charitable purposes and contained a charitable dispensary, a free primary school and that foodstuff and clothings were supplied free to the poor and distressed women who came to take part in the congregational nam-kirtan. Applications made to the Municipal Commissioners for exemption of these holdings from Municipal rates having been unsuccessful, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises after serving notice upon the Municipal Commissioners under Section 535 of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932.

(2.) The Municipal Commissioners denied in their written statement that the holdings in question were used exclusively as places of public worship and were liable to exemption from Municipal rates and the learned Subordinate Judge accepting this view dismissed the suit with costs. He also found that the suit was not maintainable as framed and that no valid notice under Section 535 of the Bengal Municipal Act had been served on the Municipal Commissioners.

(3.) The plaintiff has now appealed and challenged the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.