Refund claims for money exacted without legal right fall under Article 62 and are barred by limitation.

A claim to recover money exacted without a subsisting legal right was treated as a suit for money had and received under Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, because the amount became immediately returnable on receipt; the claim was therefore barred by limitation. The Court also rejected reclassification of the suit as one for mistake under Article 96 or Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, because mistake was not pleaded, no issue on mistake was raised, and the plaintiff did not prove timely discovery of the alleged mistake. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff's claim for refund of amounts paid after the Constitution came into force was governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. (ii) Whether the claim could instead be treated as one for relief on the ground of mistake under Article 96 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff's claim for refund of amounts paid after the Constitution came into force was governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The amounts claimed were held to have been realised after the monopoly contract had ceased to be enforceable on the plaintiff's own case. A payment exacted without a subsisting legal right was treated as money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use within Article 62. The Court applied the settled interpretation that Article 62 covers suits for money had and received where the defendant has received money which in law he had no right to receive, and the money becomes immediately returnable on receipt.

Conclusion: The claim was governed by Article 62 and was barred by limitation; this issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim could instead be treated as one for relief on the ground of mistake under Article 96 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The plaint did not plead a case of mistake, no issue on mistake had been raised, and the plaintiff could not be allowed to shift to a new factual foundation at the appellate stage. Even otherwise, the plaintiff had not shown when the alleged mistake was discovered, and the Court held that the relevant knowledge must be attributed to the plaintiff well before the suit. Section 65 did not assist because it did not alter the limitation position and, on the facts pleaded, the contract had become void when the Constitution came into force.

Conclusion: The claim did not fall under Article 96, and Section 65 afforded no relief against limitation; this issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred and failed on the plaintiff's own pleadings, so the decree dismissing the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit to recover money exacted without a subsisting legal right is governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as a claim for money had and received, and a party cannot escape that bar by raising an unpleaded case of mistake or by invoking Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 without proving timely discovery of the mistake.

---