Skip to content


Mohammad Ishaq Vs. Municipal Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in123Ind.Cas.379
AppellantMohammad Ishaq
RespondentMunicipal Board
Cases ReferredAkhoy Kumar Banerjee v. Corporation of Calcutta
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908). schedule i, article 132 - u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), sections 128(1)(i), 177--suit to recover house tax and water tax--limitation--article 132, applicability of. - .....board of cawnpore against one muhammad ishaq for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on account of house-tax and water-tax for the period from the 1st october, 1917, to the 31st of march, 1928.2. the suit was resisted on the ground that no tax which accrued due for a period more than six years before the institution of the suit was within the period of limitation. it was also contended that the defendant had gifted half of his house to his son and, therefore, was not liable to pay the whole amount of the tax claimed.3. the court of first instance found that the alleged gift by the defendant to his son had not been proved and this finding was not challenged in the lower appellate court, so i must take it that the alleged gift has not been proved.4. the only point which has been.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore against one Muhammad Ishaq for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on account of house-tax and water-tax for the period from the 1st October, 1917, to the 31st of March, 1928.

2. The suit was resisted on the ground that no tax which accrued due for a period more than six years before the institution of the suit was within the period of limitation. It was also contended that the defendant had gifted half of his house to his son and, therefore, was not liable to pay the whole amount of the tax claimed.

3. The Court of first instance found that the alleged gift by the defendant to his son had not been proved and this finding was not challenged in the lower Appellate Court, so I must take it that the alleged gift has not been proved.

4. The only point which has been argued before me is whether the Courts below were right in finding that the period of limitation applicable to the suit was governed by Article 132 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 12 years to enforce the payment of money charged upon immoveable property, starting from the time when the money sued for becomes due. It should be noted that the plaintiff expressly asks for the enforcement of the charge by sale of the property upon which the taxes are assessed, and a decree has been given to this effect.

5. The only question, therefore, is whether the sums claimed by the Municipality on account of house tax and water-tax are sums which are 'charged upon immoveable property,' within the meaning of Article 132.

6. Under Section 177 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, all sums due on account of a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both shall, subject to the prior payment of land revenue, if any, due to His Majesty thereupon be a first charge upon such buildings or lands. Section 128 makes it clear that sums due on account of house-tax and of water-tax are sums due on account of a tax imposed on the annual value of buildings or lands.:

7. In Section 128(1)(i) a 'house-tax' is described as a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both: and in Clause 10 a 'water-tax' is described as a water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both.

8. Under Section 177, therefore, the sums due on account of house-tax and water-tax are declared by statute to be a first charge upon the buildings or lands with reference to which tax is imposed.

9. I agree with the Court below, therefore, that Article 132 applies to the present suit since it is a suit to enforce payment of money charged upon immoveable property.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any authority which helps him while the ruling in Akhoy Kumar Banerjee v. Corporation of Calcutta, 27 Ind. Cas. 261 : 42 C. 625 : 19 C.W.N. 37 : 21 C.L.J. 177 supports the contention of the respondent.

11. I dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //