1956 (12) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2nd June, 1952, another notice was issued to him, stating that a sum of Rs. 2,833-14-6 was still due. It was then found by the plaintiff that three payments made by him were not given credit to and he instituted the suit for compelling the State of Travancore-Cochin to give credit to this sum and also to restrain the State from recovering the same over again. It was contended by the State that the receipts relied on by the plaintiff were not in the prescribed form and that the disputed payments were not entered in the accounts. It was therefore pleaded that the payments even if true could not be given effect to. The court below found that a sum of Rs. 1,900 was paid by the plaintiff to the Proverthicar, Lalam Pakuthy, that the receipts (Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the Government may prescribe from time to time, every land-holder shall pay to the Collector or the Deputy Collector or the Tahsildar, the Proverthicar or the Village Accountant or any other officer whom the Government may authorise in that behalf by notification in the Gazette, the revenue due from him on or before the day fixed for payment, and the payer shall be entitled to a receipt signed by the officer concerned for the payment so made. In cases where the payment is made by a person on behalf of the land- holder such receipt shall also contain the name of the person who makes the payment." This section makes it clear that payment of revenue to the Proverthicar is a valid payment. It also provides that the person making the payme....