Skip to content


C.R. Srinivasa Chariar Vs. the Muncipal Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ377
AppellantC.R. Srinivasa Chariar
RespondentThe Muncipal Council
Excerpt:
- - 2. if this had been so, we should have agreed with the learned judge that the plaintiff had failed to keep affixed to his cart within the meaning of section 88 of act iv of 1884 the registration number required by section 85 of the act......had failed to keep affixed to his cart within the meaning of section 88 of act iv of 1884 the registration number required by section 85 of the act.3. but there is no evidence that the number had become obliterated. according to the facts as stated by the advocate-general on behalf of the municipality the plaintiff removed the portion of the axle on which the registration number had been painted from the damaged wheel and affixed it to the repaired axle. we are of opinion that when the registration number has been affixed in this manner the cart bears the registration number for the purposes of section 85 and the registration number is kept affixed for the purposes of section 88 unless such affixing is contrary to any bye-law of the municipality, or a direction given by the.....
Judgment:

1. In dismissing the revision petition the learned judge, who heard the petition states that in course of repairs to the cart the number was obliterated.

2. If this had been so, we should have agreed with the learned judge that the plaintiff had failed to keep affixed to his cart within the meaning of Section 88 of Act IV of 1884 the registration number required by Section 85 of the Act.

3. But there is no evidence that the number had become obliterated. According to the facts as stated by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Municipality the plaintiff removed the portion of the axle on which the registration number had been painted from the damaged wheel and affixed it to the repaired axle. We are of opinion that when the registration number has been affixed in this manner the cart bears the registration number for the purposes of Section 85 and the registration number is kept affixed for the purposes of Section 88 unless such affixing is contrary to any bye-law of the Municipality, or a direction given by the Municipality under Section 85.

4. The Advocate-General has been unable to call our attention to any such direction or bye-law.

5. It seems to us, however, that as regards the tolls paid the judgment of the Munsif must be upheld for the reasons stated by him; so far as the tolls paid by the plaintiff are concerned the Municipality is not liable.

6. As regards the license fee, the Advocate-General has very properly conceded that the Municipality are not entitled to charge this fee twice over.

7. There is some evidence that the Municipality resolved to return this fee if the plaintiff applied for it, but there is no evidence that the plaintiff received any notice to this effect or that the Municipality tendered the amount to the plaintiff. In his judgment, the Munsif says: 'The Municipality now offer to repay the plaintiff the license fee alone.'

8. We think the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the Municipality for the amount of the 2nd license fee and we4give him a decree for this.

9. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs of the petition and of this appeal.


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