Corporation of Municipal Commissioners of Ranchi vs Musammat Mungia

Fazl Ali, J.—The question to be decided in this case is whether a suit to recover the arrears of certain. A municipal tax, such as the house and latrine tax, is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes or not. The learned Munsif of Ranchi against whose decision the present application has been preferred has held that a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try such a unit and has relied on Logan v. Kunji 9 M. 110 and Article 13, Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It may be stated at once that the case referred to by the learned Court below was decided under the old Act and is therefore no longer an authority to be followed. As the learned Munsif himself observes the scheme of the present Act is quite different from the scheme of the old Act, inasmuch as while the former Act expressly stated what classes of cases were cognizable by the Small Cause Court, the present Act details under Schedule II the suits which are excluded from the jurisdiction of such court. The question then arises as to whether the present suit fells within the exceptions referred to in Schedule II. The learned Court below is of opinion that under Article 13 the present suit is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Article 13 relates to:

A suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively called malikana and hak or of ceases or other dues when ceases or dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in the immovable property or in hereditary office or in a shrine or other religious institution.

The first point to be determined is whether a Municipality has any such "interest in any immovable property" as is referred to in Article 13. Mr. Shiveshwar Dayal, who appears in support of the application, contends that the Municipality has no "interest in immovable property" and clinches his argument by referring to the fact that in case any of the holdings were to be sold or acquired by the Land Acquisition department, the Municipality could not claim any share in the proceeds of the sale or the compensation that might be payable upon such acquisition. Now although I recognise that the term "interest" is wider than "proprietary interest", yet having regard to the context in which the expression is used if is in my judgment difficult to hold that the Municipality has any such interest in the holdings situated within the Municipal area as is contemplated by the use of the expression in Article 13.

Another point which might be noted is that the expression "dues" as used in Article 13 must be read in a restricted sense and ejusdem generis with the other dues mentioned therein. This was emphasised in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau 21 M. 243 and with that view I entirely agree. I am of opinion therefore that the taxes sought to be recovered do not fall within Article 13 or any other Article subject to which Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act is to be read and that the present suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

I would therefore allow this application, set aside the decision of the court below and direct that the plaint, returned by the learned court below, be re-admitted and that the learned court below do proceed to dispose of the suit according to law.

As no one opposes this application there will be no order for costs.

The petitioners are directed to present the plaint in the court below within a month from today.