Skip to content


Ravala Nagamma and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.699
AppellantRavala Nagamma and ors.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India
Excerpt:
limitation - illegal collection of water-cess--suit for recovery--madras revenue recovery act (ii of 1884), section 59--limitation act (ix of 1908 ), schedule i, article 16. - .....contends that article 16, schedule ii to the limitation act is applicable to this case, while the learned government pleader contends that section 59 of the revenue recovery act ii of 1864 is applicable. the decision of the question must depend on whether the cause of action on which the rent was based was some proceeding under the revenue recovery act. the learned government pleader has procured all the information available on the point. it appears that the plaintiff was himself the village munsif entitled to demand payment of the revenue due to government; it does not appear that there was any notice under section 8 of act ii of 1864 served on him. there was, therefore, no proceeding taken against him under the act. section 59 of the act is, therefore, inapplicable and the suit is.....
Judgment:

1. The question for decision in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is for recovery, from the Secretary of State for India in Council, of money alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiff on account of water-cess, claimed to be due from him. The appellant contends that Article 16, Schedule II to the Limitation Act is applicable to this case, while the learned Government Pleader contends that Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864 is applicable. The decision of the question must depend on whether the cause of action on which the rent was based was some proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned Government Pleader has procured all the information available on the point. It appears that the plaintiff was himself the Village Munsif entitled to demand payment of the revenue due to Government; it does not appear that there was any notice under Section 8 of Act II of 1864 served on him. There was, therefore, no proceeding taken against him under the Act. Section 59 of the Act is, therefore, inapplicable and the suit is not barred by limitation. We reverse the decrees of the lower Appellate Court and remand the appeals for fresh disposal according to law. The coats of these second appeals will abide the result.


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