A suit challenging the right of the Bombay Municipal Corporation to recover property tax is not a suit for accounts and is barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

JUDGMENT - Chitale, J.

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Vaidya, J. in Appeal from Order No. 405 of 1969 reversing the order of the trial Court holding that the suit in question fell under S. 6 (iv) (a) of the Court - fees Act, and it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the valuation of the subject - matter of the suit being over Rs. 25,000/-.

2. In the opinion of Vaidya, J., the suit was essentially a suit for accounts and it fell under S. 6 (iv) (I) of the Court - fees Act. The relevant prayers in the prayer clause of the plaint read thus :- (p. 93/p.bk)

(a) That the defendants may be ordered and decreed to render to the plaintiff the account of the aforesaid payments from time to time made to the defendants for property taxes of the plaintiffs said immovable properties and on taking up such account to pay to the plaintiff such amount as may be found due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

(b) That it may be declared that the amount of property taxes for which the said bills are from time to time are served on the plaintiff is paid to the defendants and nothing is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants for the property taxes for the period upto 31st March 1968.

(c) That the defendants, their officers, servants and agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honorable Court from taking any coercive action for recovery of the property taxes for the period upto 31 st March, 1968 and from attaching or selling the plaintiffs said immoveable properties more particularly described in Exh. A to the plaint".

Mr. Adik, who appears for the respondent - plaintiff, has taken us through the relevant allegations in the plaint. He referred to paras 5, 7, 10 and 13 of the plaint. It is not necessary to set out in detail the relevant allegations in the plaint, as Justice Vaidya has set out the same judgment. In substance what the plaintiff alleges is that towards the property tax properly due from him he has made payments from time to time and not only the amount due from him to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) by way of property tax is paid, but the Corporation is over - paid. This is made clear by the annexures to the plaint. Exh. F to the plaint sets out the particulars of the amount which the plaintiff claims from the Corporation as due and payable to him, which is Rupees 22,238.81. Exh. G to the plaint is headed "Summary of the amount due to the plaintiff from the Municipality". The amount shown under this head is Rupees 5,511.05. It is rather difficult to reconcile the headings of these two exhibits, but it appears from Exh. G to the plaint that, according to the plaintiff, taking all the payments made by the plaintiff to the Corporation into account, he alleges that the Corporation is over - paid to the extent of Rs. 5,511.05. Merely because the plaintiff alleges that he has made payments from time to time, the Corporation is thereby over - paid, hence it is necessary to take accounts, it cannot be said to be a suit for accounts. What must be considered is not an allegation here and there in the plaint, but the substance of the plaint read as a whole. For a suit for accounts, legal liability to render accounts against the defendant must appear on the allegations in the plaint. In the present case all that the plaintiff alleges is that the Corporation made demands for property tax from time to time and he has not only paid the entire property tax due from him, but in fact he has over - paid the Corporation. Considering the nature of the suit, as disclosed by the allegations in the plaint, it is obvious that in law there is no liability on the Bombay Municipal Corporation to render accounts to the plaintiff. The Corporation issued bills from time to time and made demands pursuant to those bills. If it is the case of the plaintiff that he has paid the entire amount due from him by way of property tax and has over - paid the Corporation, it is for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document