NAGARPALIKA THAKURDWARA versus KHALIL AHMED & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 28-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 912 
NAGARPALIKA THAKURDWARA 
v. 
KHALIL AHMED & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9822 OF 2016) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s.102 - Applicability of - Respo11dents, claiming to reside 
c 
outside the mu11icipal limits of appe/lant-Nagar Palika filed suit 
seeking permane11t i11ju11ction agai11st appellant-Nagar Palika from 
recovery of house tax (less tha11 Rs.25,0001-), thus impliedly praying 
for a declaration that they were 11ot liable to pay a11y tax to appellant-
Nagar Palika - Suit dismissed by trial court - First appeal by 
respo11dents allowed - Second appeal by appellant-Nagar Palika 
D 
dismissed by High Court holdi11g that claim i11 the seco11d appeal 
was less tha11 Rs.25,0001- a11d thus by virtue of provisio11s of s.102 
110 seco11d appeal would lie whe11 the subject matter of the original 
suit was for recovery of money 11ot exceedi11g Rs,25,0001- - 011 
appeal, held: To avail advantage of s. l 02, subject matter of the 
E 
origi11al suit should be only recovery of money not exceeding 
Rs.25, 0001- - If the. subject matter of the suit is anything other than 
recovery of mo11ey, s. l 02 cannot be invoked - 111 the i11sta11t case, 
the suit was not only for recovery of money but was for per111a11e11t 
i11ju11ctio11 and a dec/aratio11 also - Provision of s. l 02 11ot applicable 
- Matter remitted to High Court for fresh co11sideratio11 - · Uttar 
F 
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. 
G 
H 
s.102 - Purpose behi11d enactment - Held· To reduce quantum 
of litigation so that courts may not have to waste time where stakes 
are very meagre and not of much consequence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the suit was not only for 
recovery of money, but it was for a declaration and permanent 
injunction. [Para 13] [915-G) 
2. So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 
of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be only 
912 
NAGARPALIKA THAKURDWARA v. KHALIL AHMED & ORS. 913 
recovery of money and that too, not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. If 
the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of 
money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of 
Section 102 of the CPC cannot be invoked. In view of the 
aforestated fact, the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC could 
not have been ap1>lied. [Paras 15, 16) [916-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9822 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2011 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal Civil Appeal No. 781 of 
2011. 
Aniket Jain, Saurav Aggarwal, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs., for the 
Appellant. 
Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, Advs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. I. 
Leave granted. 
2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.9.2011 delivered by 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.781 of 
2011, the appellant Nagar Palika has approached this Court by way of 
this appeal. 
3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as 
under: 
The respondents, who claim to be residing outside the municipal 
limits ofNagar Palika Thakurdwara, Distrid Moradabad, filed a Civil 
Suit being OS No.13 of 1994 against the appellant in the court of Civi I 
Judge (Junior Division), Thakurdwara, praying for the following reliefs: 
"(a) That the defendant no. I be restrained by decree of permanent 
injunction that they remain restrained from recovery of alleged 
house tax of Rs.6760/- regarding crusher in question, present 
building no.319 and calendaring factory building no.320 and shops 
in question, building no.321 to 332 respectively which are outside 
the limits of municipality and situated in village Fatehullah Ganj in 
property owned by Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 situated in village 
Fatehullah Ganj and from recovery of Rs.4,246.07 amount 
described in the recovery certificate or more by itself or its agent 
defendant no.2 or by any other medium or be restrained from 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
imposing any house tax till the pronouncement of the properties in 
question to be within the limits of municipality by the Government 
in either years. 
(b) That the defendant no.1 be ordered to give the cost of the 
present suit to the plaintiff(s). 
B 
(c) Thatthe relief which is fit in the opinion of the Hon'ble Court 
in favour of the plaintiff(s) be gr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.