PANCHAYAT BOARD, RAZOLE BY ITS PRESIDENT Vs. SAIT AMICHAND DUNGARMAL FIRM REPRESENTED BY SAIT ANJARIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are brought from the decisions of the learned District Munsif of Razole in S.C.S. Nos. 625 etc., of 1937. The suits were filed by the respondents, residents within the limits of the Union Panchayat of Razole for the refund of sums of money collected from them in the shape of profession-tax. The learned District Munsif decreed the suits and the Panchayat Board has preferred these revision petitions.

(2.) The Panchayat Board alleged three main reasons why the suits should be dismissed. The first was a plea that the suits were barred by limitation under Section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act, since they had been brought more than six months after the date on which the cause of action arose. The second was that payments had been made voluntarily and therefore the sums paid could not be recovered and the third was that the suits were barred by Section 228 (2) of the Local Boards Act.

(3.) Mr. Viyanna for the petitioning Board has drawn my attention to the decision of the Full Bench in Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyur V/s. Western India Matches Co . After that decision it is no longer possible for Mr. Viyanna to contend that the suits were barred by limitation under Section 225 of the Local Boards Act. Mr. Viyanna has also not argued the second point, namely, that the payments were made voluntarily. He has devoted his argument to the question arising under Section 228 (2). That provision is as follows: No suit shall be brought in any Court to recover any sum of money collected under the authority of this Act or to recover damages on account of any assessment or collection of money made under the said authority . provided that the provisions of this Act have been in substance and effect complied with.