SANKAR DAS BANERJEE Vs. RASH BEHARI MOKDAL
LAWS(CAL)-1960-12-18
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 12,1960

Sankar Das Banerjee Appellant
VERSUS
Rash Behari Mokdal Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PURUSOTTAM SINGHA V. ATUL CHANDRA CHOWDHYRY [REFERRED]
KEDARUDDIN AHAMED V. SM. SAMSUR MATA [REFERRED]
<RC>LAWSUIT(CAL) 1960 0 321;ILR(CAL) 1961 2 481;</RC> HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA <JGN>BANERJEE,NIYOGI</JGN> SANKAR DAS BANERJEE RASH BEHARI MOKDAL <AT>APPEAL FROM APPELLATE DECREE 1144 OF 1955</AT> 12.12.1960 <SUBJECT>CIVIL</SUBJECT><SI> CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 SEC 103;BENGAL (RURAL) PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT,1930 SEC 34(3);BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 64(2);BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 64(1);BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 39;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 41;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 64;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 40;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 37;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 39(B);BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT,1919 SEC 18;BENGAL VILLAGE SELF-G [REFERRED TO]
HANI PROVA BOY V. SUBODH CHANDRA BISWAS [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is directed against an appellate decree affirming the decree passed by a learned Munsif.
The suit, out of which this arises, was for declaration that the assessment of. union, rate, with education cess, made on the Plaintiff by the Defendant Panighata Union Board, for the year 1358 B.S., was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from realising the same.

(2.)The Plaintiff Respondent's case was that although possessed of properties within the Union Board he did not reside within the said union nor did he own or occupy any building within the said union. He contended that he was, therefore, not liable to taxation under Section 37 of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(3.)The Defendant Union Board contested the case. It was contended that the Plaintiff had a Kutchery house within the territorial limits of Panighata Union Board and, therefore, the Union Board had jurisdiction to assess rates upon him. By way of demurrer the Defendant, inter alia, pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation, under Section 64(2) of the Act.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.