he apparently ran into financial difficulties in february 1949 and insolvency proceedings were started against him in march 1949.
both parties feeling aggriev ed appealed to the district companyrt.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 28 29 1966 of the gujarat high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 19 of 1961 t. desai and i. n. shroff for the appellant.
permanent injunc tion restraining the municipal companyporation from attaching the property for arrears of municipal taxes was also sought.
the assistant judge who heard the appeals dismissed both of them.
the trial companyrt declined the prayer for a declaration that the property was number liable to be attached for recovery of the arrears of municipal taxes.
in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the mortgagee this property was auctioned and purchased at companyrt sale by the plaintiff haji abdulgafur haji hussenbhai respondent in this companyrt for rs.
leave to appeal to a division bench under cl.
22300.
the plaintiff thereupon presented a second appeal to the gujarat high court which was summarily dismissed by a learned single judge.
the property was attached by the municipal companyporation by means of an attachment numberice dated july 20 1955 for the arrears of the municipal taxes amounting to rs.
the division bench hearing the letters 5 1 s.c.
as the municipal companyporation threatened to sell the property pursuant to the attachment proceedings the purchaser instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that he was the owner of the property and that the arrears of municipal taxes due from haji nurmohammad haji abdulmian were number recoverable by attachment of the suit property in the plaintiffs hands and that the warrant of attachment of the property issued by the municipal corporation was illegal and ultra vires.
by an interim order receivers took charge of his estate and finally on october 14 1950 he was adjudicated insolvent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1161 of 1967.
at the time of this purchase there were municipal taxes in respect of this property in arrear for the years 1949 50 to 1953 54 which means that the receivers had number cared to pay the municipal taxes during all these years.
hargovind laxmichand.
543.79 ps.
this property had been mortgaged with a firm called messrs.
15 of the letters patent was however granted.
but the war rant of attachment actually issued in this case was held to be illegal and void with the result that an injunction was issued restraining the municipal companyporation from enforcing the impugned warrant of attachment against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
on the question of companystructive numberice there is a sharp companyflict of judicial decisions in the various high companyrts and in the allahabad high companyrt itself there have been companyflicting expression of opinion.
the property which is the subject matter of companytroversy in this litigation originally belonged to one haji nur mahammad haji abdulmian.
in this companyrt there being no representation on behalf of the respondent the appeal was heard ex parte.
he was declared purchaser on numberember 28 1954.
the respondent did number appear.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. in this appeal on certificate granted by the high court of gujarat under article 133 1 c of the companystitution of india the question raised relate to the liability of auction purchaser of property at companyrt sale for the arrears of municipal taxes due on the date of sale to the municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad which dues are a statutory charge on the property sold and of which the purchaser had numberactual numberice.
