1. This application in revision by the defendant arises out of a suit by the Chairman and Commissioners of Chaibassa Municipality for recovery of Rs. 837.50, being the arrears of Municipal taxes for the period 1966-67 to 1968-69.

2. Admittedly Holding No. 188 in Ward No. 1 of the Chaibassa Municipality belonged to one Sudhir Kumar Ghose. The petitioner, claims to have purchased half portion of the said holding by a registered sale deed dated 20-1-1961 (Ext. E). The Municipality brought the suit for recovery of the arrears of taxes for the entire holding. According to the evidence on the record and the findings of the courts below, it is clear that the holding in question was not divided as yet, nor the name of the defendant was mutated over the portion of the holding said to have been purchased by her. The trial court recorded a finding that the defendant was the owner of the western half portion of the holding in question, and not of the entire holding. It, however, dismissed the suit for the reason that the Municipality having not apportioned the taxes in respect of half of the holding of the defendant, the court itself could not perform that duty in violation of the machinery provided under the Municipal Act itself, and, accordingly, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the court of appeal below came to a different conclusion that the title of the defendant was over the entire Holding No. 188 over which she was in possession as well and repelled the argument advanced on her behalf that the holding standing recorded in the Municipal Register for the period in question in favour of her vendor and others, she was not liable to the plaintiffs claim until she was mutated, and, accordingly, the suit has been decreed.

3. In this court Mr. Arun Chandra Mitra appearing for the defendant petitioner has seriously challenged the decision of the court of appeal below and contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery of the arrears of taxes from any other person except who happened to be recorded as owner in the Municipal records. He tried to derive support for his contention from several decisions of this court. I shall deal with them hereinafter.

4. In order to appreciate the point, it will be useful to refer to some provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Owner has been defined in Sec.3 (18) of the Act as follows: "Owner" includes-

(a) every person who is entitled for the time being to receive any rent in respect of the land with regard to which the word is used, whether from the occupier or otherwise:

(b) a manager on behalf of any such person;

.

(c) any agent for any such person; and

(d) a trustee for any such person: Provided that no such manager, agent or trustee shall be liable to do anything required by this Act to be done by the owner, nor shall he be subject to any fine for omitting to do such thing, unless he has sufficient funds in his hands as such manager, agent or trustee to do such thing."

The next relevant section in point is Sec.100 which provides that "any tax which is assessed on the annual value of holdings other than the latrine tax, shall ......... be payable by the owners of holdings within the Municipality". Sec.105 contemplates preparation of assessment list containing inter alia, the name of the owner and occupier, which list is to be prepared once in every five years, according to Sec.106. Sec.107 empowers the Commissioners to amend the assessment list from time to time only by entering therein the name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered, or by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any holding the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the holding. For these alterations the Commissioners have to give at least one months notice to the persons interested, and thereafter a procedure for filing objections, hea