LAWS(PAT)-1983-12-23

THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE CHAKRADHARPUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. MAHADEVI AGARWAL AND ANOTHER

Decided On December 06, 1983
The Chairman And Commissioners Of The Chakradharpur Municipality Appellant
V/S
Mahadevi Agarwal And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1106/88 paise on account of arrears of the municipal taxes from the 4th quarter, 1962 -63 to the 3rd quarter of 1968 -69 in respect of holding No. 5, Ward No. 7, within the jurisdiction of the Chakradharpur Municipality, as fully described in Schedules A and B of the plaint. The plaintiffs/Municipality demanded the arrears of the taxes with regard to holding tax, education cess and the latrine tax. The case of the plaintiffs was that the aforesaid tax was payable in quarterly instalments and as the defendants had not paid the same, hence the suit.

(2.) The defendants filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. Their case was that the holding in question belonged to one Rameshwar Lal Marwari who was dead now and he was survived by his three sons, who were alive and the plaintiffs had not shown as to how the defendants became legal heirs of the deceased, Rameshwar Lal Marwari, and, further contended that as the names of the defendants do not occur in the demand register of the Chakradharpur Municipality, the defendants were not liable to pay the tax, as demanded. Further defence was that no notice of assessment or notice of demand in respect of the holding in question was served upon the defendants and hence the defendants were not liable.

(3.) The defendants further pleaded that they had acquired the holding in question by a will dated 28.12.1956, which was duly probated, and when the defendants applied for mutation of their names in respect of the holding in suit, as far back as in 1958, the Municipality refused to mutate their names and hence the defendants were not liable for the demands made and the demands were not recoverable from them The defendants further pleaded that a portion of the claim was barred by limitation.