SARAJUBALA DEVI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the defendant arises out of a suit by the Chairman and Commissioners of Chaibassa Municipality for recovery of Rs. 837.50, being the arrears of Municipal taxes for the period 1966-67 to 1968-69.

(2.) Admittedly Holding No. 188 in Ward No. 1 of the Chaibassa Municipality belonged to one Sudhir Kumar Ghose. The petitioner, claims to have purchased half portion of the said holding by a registered sale deed dated 20-1-1961 (Ext. E). The Municipality brought the suit for recovery of the arrears of taxes for the entire holding. According to the evidence on the record and the findings of the courts below, it is clear that the holding in question was not divided as yet, nor the name of the defendant was mutated over the portion of the holding said to have been purchased by her. The trial court recorded a finding that the defendant was the owner of the western half portion of the holding in question, and not of the entire holding. It, however, dismissed the suit for the reason that the Municipality having not apportioned the taxes in respect of half of the holding of the defendant, the court itself could not perform that duty in violation of the machinery provided under the Municipal Act itself, and, accordingly, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the court of appeal below came to a different conclusion that the title of the defendant was over the entire Holding No. 188 over which she was in possession as well and repelled the argument advanced on her behalf that the holding standing recorded in the Municipal Register for the period in question in favour of her vendor and others, she was not liable to the plaintiff's claim until she was mutated, and, accordingly, the suit has been decreed.

(3.) In this court Mr. Arun Chandra Mitra appearing for the defendant petitioner has seriously challenged the decision of the court of appeal below and contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery of the arrears of taxes from any other person except who happened to be recorded as owner in the Municipal records. He tried to derive support for his contention from several decisions of this court. I shall deal with them hereinafter.