The presentation of the bill is a condition precedent to the running of time under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, and that the suit was therefore not barred by limitation.

( 1 ) THE Corporation of Calcutta is the plaintiff. It has been alleged that the defendant is the owner of the disputed premises. A sum of Rs. 1785. 60 P. is payable to the plaintiff towards the arrears of consolidated rate and arrear bills up to 4th quarter of 1951-1952 and Rs. 149. 53 P. as interest. Such amount was not paid in spite of demands. The suit is for recovery of such amount and for a further declaration that such sum is a first charge on the premises in question.

( 2 ) THE defence is that the suit is not maintainable and the claim is barred by limitation. During the pendency of an appeal preferred by him, the present suit was illegally instituted.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version and passed a decree in the preliminary form. The defendant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore. Being aggrieved by that decision, the present appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) FOUR points have been urged on behalf of the appellant. It has been stated that in view of Section 247 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, the defendant-appellant is liable to pay the dues of only one year. In fact he acquired the property on the footing of a deed of gift. So his liability will extend only to one year's dues prior to the date of the deed of gift. It has been contended that in that section the word "purchase" has been stated. But that word has not been denned in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. In that view of the matter, we are to go by the definition of the word "purchase" as will appear from Chambers's dictionary. There the word 'purchase' has been stated to mean to get in any way other than by inheritance. The plaintiff did not acquire the property by inheritance and hence in any view of the matter, the defendant is entitled to some relief even if the court holds that the suit is maintainable.

( 5 ) IT is, therefore, necessary to note the relevant provisions of Section 247 of the Act. That section deals with liability of a purchaser for vendor's share of the consolidated rate. The proviso to that section lays down that the purchaser shall not be liable for any sum due for any period exceeding one year prior to the date of purchase. The words 'sale' and 'gift' have been defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to Section 54, 'sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Only in case of a sale, the purchaser steps into the property covered by the sale. There can be no sale according to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act without consideration. But in a gift the question of consideration does not crop up. Section 122 of the Act says that gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called a donor to another called a donee. Of course, sale and gift are covered by the word 'transfer' within the meaning of that Act, but the concept of those expressions is entirely different. So by no stretch of imagination, a 'donee' that is, a person accepting a gift voluntarily and without consideration, can claim to be a purchaser so as to invoke the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act or of the provisions of Section 247 of the Act in question. There can be no purchaser without payment of any consideration. Hence this contention must fail.

( 6 ) IT has been next contended on behalf of the appellant that the defendant filed an objection and meanwhile the present suit was filed. Since the Corporation chose to institute the suit during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the appellant, the suit is not maintainable. This contention cannot be accepted because there is no such provision in the Act. If the defendant succeeds in the appeal, then necessary refund can be asked for and granted by the Corporation. But that does not mean that the appeal filed by the plaintiff will not be main