Void recovery certificate and rebutted tenancy entries allowed partial refund, with one payment barred by limitation.

A certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act is void where no public demand existed when it was issued, so the ordinary civil court jurisdiction was not excluded. Entries in the Record-of-Rights were not conclusive against the plaintiffs on tenancy and possession where the factual findings rebutted them, including the absence of any lawful settlement to them as patnidars. Refund of sums paid under protest was recoverable as money had and received, but only within the applicable three-year limitation period; the payment made on 28 October 1920 was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the validity of a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act and the liability of the certificate debtor could be challenged only within the machinery of that Act; (ii) whether the entries in the Record-of-Rights under the Bengal Tenancy Act precluded the plaintiffs from denying liability as tenants for rent and cesses; and (iii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of the amounts paid under protest and, if so, to what extent the claim was within limitation.

Issue (i): whether the validity of a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act and the liability of the certificate debtor could be challenged only within the machinery of that Act.

Analysis: The certificate procedure did not oust the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court where no public demand was in fact due. A valid certificate required an existing demand payable by the certificate debtor, and if no such demand existed when the certificate was signed, the certificate officer acted beyond jurisdiction and the proceedings founded upon it were void. The statutory remedy was therefore not exclusive in a case where the very foundation of the certificate was absent.

Conclusion: The objection failed, and the certificates were held to be ultra vires and void if no public demand was due.

Issue (ii): whether the entries in the Record-of-Rights under the Bengal Tenancy Act precluded the plaintiffs from denying liability as tenants for rent and cesses.

Analysis: The entry relating to rent settled was conclusive, but other entries were only presumed correct until disproved. The findings of fact rebutted the entries showing the plaintiffs as tenants in possession, because no settlement was or could lawfully be offered to them as patnidars and they had refused to take settlement. The Government could not compel them to accept a tenancy against their will merely because the zemindars had declined settlement.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not precluded by the Record-of-Rights from disputing liability, and the tenancy and possession entries stood rebutted.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of the amounts paid under protest and, if so, to what extent the claim was within limitation.

Analysis: The refund claim was treated as one for money had and received, governed by the limitation period applicable to such suits. The payments made under protest were recoverable except where the particular payment fell outside the three-year period computed from the institution of the suits.

Conclusion: Refund was allowed in part, but the payment made on 28 October 1920 was time-barred and not recoverable.

Final Conclusion: The decrees below were set aside and relief was granted to the plaintiffs on the substantive liability issue, with a partial bar applied to one item of refund by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act is void where no public demand is actually due at the time of its issue, and rebuttable Record-of-Rights entries cannot defeat proof that the alleged tenancy or liability does not exist.

---