Survey settlement validity and strict Section 80 notice compliance governed the Government levy dispute and suit maintainability.

A survey settlement under the Bombay Land Revenue Code was upheld where the statutory steps were not directly proved but were supported by long-standing assessment, open announcement to grantees, and the presumption of regularity under the Evidence Act; the resulting non-agricultural assessment was therefore treated as lawful. The plea of res judicata failed because the earlier litigation had not directly and substantially decided whether such a settlement existed. The suit against the Government also failed because notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was not validly served on all suing trustees, and that mandatory precondition had to be strictly complied with before proceedings could continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier decision barred the Government from disputing that a survey settlement had been introduced in Vile Parle. (ii) Whether a valid survey settlement had been introduced in the villages under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 so as to justify levy of non-agricultural assessment. (iii) Whether the Juhu suit was incompetent for want of valid notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier decision barred the Government from disputing that a survey settlement had been introduced in Vile Parle.

Analysis: The plea of res judicata failed because the question whether a survey settlement had been introduced had not been directly and substantially in issue in the earlier litigation. The earlier case proceeded on an admission as to survey settlement, and the Government was not bound to raise an issue which, in the circumstances of that suit, was not one it ought to have litigated. Explanation IV to Section 11 could not be used to preclude the Government from raising the point.

Conclusion: The bar of res judicata did not apply, and the Government was entitled to contest the existence of a survey settlement.

Issue (ii): Whether a valid survey settlement had been introduced in the villages under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 so as to justify levy of non-agricultural assessment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required an application by the holder for extension of the survey provisions to alienated villages, authorisation by the Governor in Council, sanction of the assessment under Section 102, and introduction of the settlement under Section 103. Although direct proof of each step was lacking, the surrounding circumstances were compelling: the settlement was openly announced to the grantees in 1886, the assessment was continuously levied for decades, and official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. The Court applied the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and held that the necessary steps must have been taken.

Conclusion: A survey settlement was held to have been validly introduced, and the non-agricultural assessment was held to be lawful.

Issue (iii): Whether the Juhu suit was incompetent for want of valid notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: Section 80 required notice stating the names, description and residence of the plaintiffs before a suit against the Government could be instituted. The notice had been issued only in the name of one trustee, while the suit was later instituted by three trustees. Since no notice had been served on behalf of the substituted trustees, the statutory condition precedent was not satisfied. The provision was held to be mandatory and strictly enforceable.

Conclusion: The Juhu suit was incompetent for want of valid notice under Section 80.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Government's levy failed on the merits in Vile Parle, while the Juhu claim failed for non-compliance with the statutory notice requirement; the appeals were therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory preconditions for survey settlement under the revenue code are established by compelling circumstances and the presumption of regularity, non-agricultural assessment levied pursuant to that settlement is valid; and a notice requirement expressed in mandatory terms must be strictly complied with before a suit against the Government can proceed.

---