Statutory municipal charge on arrears requires a proper charge suit and decree before enforcement against purchasers at court sale.

Arrear municipal rates under Section 167 of the Bengal Municipal Act created a statutory first charge on the holding, and a purchaser at a court sale was not automatically protected where constructive notice or a duty to inquire existed. Even so, the municipality could enforce that statutory charge only through a properly framed suit and an appropriate charge decree; a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 63 CPC could not be used to create or enforce a charge where only a money decree existed. The purchasers therefore took subject to the charge in principle, but the charge could not be declared or enforced in the present proceedings for want of a valid charge suit and decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether arrear municipal rates under Section 167 of the Bengal Municipal Act created a statutory first charge on the holdings and, if so, whether that charge could be enforced against purchasers who had acquired title at a court sale; and whether, in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court could declare and enforce such a charge in the absence of a properly framed charge suit or charge decree.

Analysis: Section 167 of the Bengal Municipal Act created a first charge on the holding for arrear rates, in substance similar to the charge provisions in the Calcutta Municipal Acts. A purchaser of property burdened by a municipal first charge is not protected merely because the purchase occurred at a court sale if the circumstances show constructive notice or a duty to inquire into arrears. However, a charge created by statute does not become enforceable against the property in the hands of the purchaser unless the municipality brings a properly framed suit for enforcement of that charge and obtains an appropriate charge decree. A proceeding under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited in scope and cannot be used to create or enforce such a charge when the underlying decree is only a money decree and no charge decree has been passed.

Conclusion: The purchasers took subject to the statutory charge in principle, but the municipality could not enforce the charge or obtain a declaration of liability in the present proceedings, as no proper charge suit or charge decree existed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's decree could not stand, and the suits failed for want of a properly instituted proceeding to enforce the statutory charge.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory municipal charge, though validly created by law, can be enforced against the property only through a properly framed suit and appropriate charge decree, and a summary proceeding cannot be used to convert a money decree into an enforceable charge decree.

---