https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289339 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. en-us Mon, 11 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 12:55:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289339 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289339