Transferee of part of property liable to pay tax.

Palayamkottai Municipality, which was the first defendant in the suit, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 522-8-6. The basis of the claim was that this amount had been illegally collected from the plaintiff as property tax, and that the Municipality was bound to refund the amount. In 1944 the plaintiff purchased the second defendant inamdar’s interest in 1.7 acres out of a larger extent of 25.25 acres of land and also acquired subsequently in about 1945 the kudiwaram interest in the 1.7 acres. The Municipality claimed that the plaintiff was liable to pay tax for the property from 1st October, 1948 to 31st March, 1952, even in respect of the remaining extent of 25.25 acres not transferred to him. As the plaintiff had to stand as a candidate for the municipal election and if the tax was not paid the Commissioner, as the Election Officer, threatened to reject his nomination, the plaintiff was compelled to pay the tax under protest. The plaintiff’s case was that whatever might be the liability of the transferor to the property tax for the entirety of the property consequent upon the fact that he failed to give notice within the time prescribed by the statute, his liability to tax was only confined to the property transferred to him. The property that was transferred to him, viz., 1.7 acres was a defined area described by boundaries and extent. The defence for the Municipality was that inasmuch as the second defendant-transferor failed to give notice of the transfer within the time prescribed by section 88 (1) of the District Municipalities Act, both the transferor and the transferee of a portion of the property would be liable to property tax for the entirety of the property. There were other defences also raised by the Municipality such as that the Court had no jurisdiction, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the payment of tax by the plaintiff was a voluntary one Both the lower Courts repelled every one of them and decreed the suit.

In this Court, the only point argued on behalf of the first defendant was about the liability of the plaintiff to pay property tax even in respect of the property not transferred to him by the second defendant. Sri. B. V. Viswanatha Iyer, the learned counsel for the Municipality, contends that it being common ground that no notice was given by the second defendant of the transfer of 1.7 acres to the plaintiff as required by section 88 (1) of the District Municipalities Act, not only the transferor but also the transferee of the 1.7 acres would be liable for the tax for the whole of the property under section 88 (4) of the Act. The learned counsel contends that the property tax levied on the entire property of an extent of 25.25 acres was one and indivisible and that so long as the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 88 were not complied with, the liability of the transferor to pay the entire tax, notwithstanding the transfer of a position of the property, continued and that by virtue of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (4) of section 88 the transferee also became liable for the entire tax. It seems to me that this contention is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the true scope of section 88 (1) and (4). The liability to pay property tax arises under section 81. The method of assessment of property tax is provided for by section 82. Section 85 provides that the property tax shall be a first charge upon the relative property. Section 88 (1) runs:

"Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of property tax on any premises to or over such premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same shall be transferred shall within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration if it be registered or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such transfer to the Executive Authority."

Section 88