GOBINDA CHANDRA GANGULY Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought to have it, declared that the Municipal tax imposed on a certain building is illegal and also for a refund of the amount realized from the plaintiff as municipal and latrine taxes.

(2.) The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff is the naib of the Maharaja of Mymensingh, and, as such, occupies a small house adjoining, the kacheri of the Maharaja. The Municipality have assessed him with municipal taxes on the ground that the house in which he resides and its site form a separate holding from the kacheri house belonging to the Maharaja, on which a separate assessment has been made.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion, first, that the house occupied by the plaintiff and the kacheri house are one holding, and secondly, that the plaintiff is not the occupier of the house in which he resides within the meaning of Section 85 of the Municipal Act, but that the occupier is the Maharaja of Mymensinh. For these reasons, he has given the plaintiff a decree.