Judgment

DUA, J :- In this appeal on certificate granted by High Court of Gujarat under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution of India the questions raised relate to the liability of auction purchaser of property at Court sale for the arrears of municipal taxes due on the date of sale to the municipal corporation of the City of Ahmedabad which dues are a statutory charge on the property sold and of which the purchaser had no actual notice. On the question of constructive notice there is a sharp conflict of judicial decisions in the various High Courts and in the Allahabad High Court itself there have been conflicting expressions of opinion. In this Court there being no representation on behalf of the respondent the appeal was heard ex parte.

2.The property which is the subject-matter of controversy in this litigation originally belonged to one Haji Nur Mahammad Haji Abdulmian. He apparently ran into financial difficulties in February, 1949, and insolvency proceedings were started against him in March, 1949. By an interim order receivers took charge of his estate and finally on October 14, 1950 he was adjudicated insolvent. The property in question accordingly vested in the receivers. This property had been mortgaged with a firm called Messrs Hargovind Laxmichand. In execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the mortgagee this property was auctioned and purchased at court sale by the plaintiff Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai. (respondent in this Court) for Rs. 22,300/-. He was declared purchaser on November 28, 1954. At the time of this purchase them were municipal taxes in respect of this property in arrear for the years 1949-50 to 1953-54 which means that the receivers had not cared to nay the municipal taxes during all these years. The property was attached by the municipal corporation by means of an attachment notice dated July 20. 1955 for the arrears of the municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 543.70 ps. As the municipal corporation threatened to sell the property pursuant to the attachment proceedings the purchaser instituted the suit (giving rise to this appeal) for a declaration that he was the owner of the property and that the arrears of municipal taxes due from Haju Nurmohammad Haji Abdulmian were not recoverable by attachment of the suit property in the plaintiffs hands and that the warrant of attachment of the property issued by the municipal corporation was illegal and ultra vires. Permanent injunction retraining the municipal corporation from attaching the property for arrears of municipal taxes was also sought. The trial Court declined the prayer for a declaration that the property was not liable to be attached for recovery of the arrears of municipal taxes. But the warrant of attachment actually issued in this case was held to be illegal and void with the result that an injunction was issued restraining the municipal corporation from enforcing the impugned warrant of attachment against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Both parties feeling aggrieved appealed to the District Court. The Assistant Judge who heard the appeals dismissed both of them. The plaintiff thereupon presented a second appeal to the Gujarat High Court which was summarily dismissed by a learned single Judge. Leave to appeal to a Division Bench under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent was however granted. The Division Bench hearing the Letters Patent appeal in a fairly lengthy order allowed the plaintiff s appeal and decreed his suit holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the charge of the municipal corporation for arrears of municipal tax is not enforceable against his property and also restraining the municipal corporation by a permanent injunction from proceeding to realise from this property the charge in respect of the arrears of municipal taxes. On appeal in this Court three main questiom were raised by Shri S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. To begin with it was contended that there is no warr