Loading...

K.Surendran vs District Collector Trichur on 11 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Surendran vs District Collector Trichur on 11 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS.No. 162 of 1996()



1. K.SURENDRAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TRICHUR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI,SMT.SUMATI DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :11/07/2008

 O R D E R
                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                -----------------------------------------------
                            A.S. No. 162 OF 1996
                -----------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

The suit was one for injunction to restrain the defendants from

initiating action under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the

amounts mentioned in Ext.A1 demand. Under Ext.A1 a total amount

of Rs.26703/- is demanded from the appellant plaintiff towards motor

vehicle tax payable in respect of vehicle No.KLZ 1301 for the period

from 1-1-1982 to 30-9-1983. The main premise on which relief was

sought for in the plaint was that the appellant had already parted with

ownership and possession of the bus in question and hence will not be

liable to pay the motor vehicle tax. The respondents – defendants filed

a joint written statement raising various contentions and on the basis

of the contentions raised the learned Subordinate Judge formulated

the following issues for trial.

1. Is the suit maintainable ?

2. Did the plaintiff part with possession and ownership of the Bus
bearing No. KLZ 1301 as alleged ?

3. If the answer to issue No.2 is positive whether the plaintiff
had intimated the transfer of the vehicle to the third
defendant?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court
without resorting to the remedy provided under section 23 of

WP(C)N0.

-2-

the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to the injunction prayed for?

6. Reliefs and costs?

The parties did not adduce any evidence and the evidence in the case

consisted of the suit document Ext.A1 demand notice on the side of

the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge on an evaluation of the pleadings

and the arguments addressed answered issue No.1 in favour of the

appellant-plaintiff and held that the suit is maintainable. Issue No.2

was answered against the appellant-plaintiff. In my opinion the

learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in doing so in the

absence of any evidence from the side of the appellant-plaintiff. Issue

No.3 being dependent on the finding of issue No.2 was rightly deleted

by the learned Sub Judge. Issue Nos.4 and 5 which are interrelated to

each other were also answered by the learned Sub Judge against the

plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge noticed that Section 23 of the Motor

Vehicles Taxation Act provides remedy by way of appeal before the

statutory appellate authority and in as much as the appellant-plaintiff

had not exhausted that remedy the discretionary relief of injunction

which has got foundations in equity and discretion of the court could

not be granted. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for

WP(C)N0.

-3-

the appellant and the learned Govt. Pleader. Though the learned

counsel for the appellant addressed me on the various grounds raised

in the appeal memorandum the only submission which appeal to me

was the submission that on the basis of the admissions contained in

the written statement itself the the appellant could not have been

made liable for payment of tax for the period prior to the appellant

becoming the owner of the vehicle. But since in my opinion the finding

of the learned Sub Judge on issue No.4, i.e., whether the relief of

injunction could be granted due to the existence of alternate statutory

remedy is a correct one I am not inclined to uphold even that

submission. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails

and will stand dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case the

parties will suffer their costs in this appeal.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

WP(C)N0.

-4-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information