Judgment.- The plaintiff in O.S. No. 41 of 1957, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam, sued the Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, represented by its Executive Officer, the Commissioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 132 under the following circumstances. The plaintiff owned a country-cart with two bullocks. The cart and the bullocks were kept in the village of Ramanujapuram, of which place the plaintiff was a permanent resident. Ramanujapuram is a village situate at a distance of seven miles from the municipal limits of Kumbakonam. The cart drawn by the bullocks was within the municipal limits of Kumbakonam on 6th September, 1956, carrying straw and fuel for the domestic use of the plaintiff’s uncle who was residing at Mudukku Street, in Kumbakonam. The goods were unloaded and the cart drawn by the bullocks was on its way back to the village along Darasuram Road. The cart was then stopped by the employees of the Municipal Council on the ground that the cart was liable to pay tax under the Municipalities Act and that no such tax had been paid. The plaintiff’s case was that the municipal staff yoked the bulls to the cart and had the cart drawn to the premises of the office of the Municipality in spite of protest made by the driver of the cart. The Municipality collected from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 31-2-0, consisting of Rs. 24 being the feeding charges for the bullocks during the period of their detention by the Municipality, Rs. 4-2-0 being the tax payable on the cart, Re. 1 tax on each of the bulls and Re. 1 for penalty and incidental charges. This amount together with the claim for damages for mental pain and distress estimated at Rs. 100 formed the subject-matter of the suit. The defendant-Municipality contested the suit on the ground that what was levied and recovered from the plaintiff by way of tax and feeding charges was properly done in the exercise of their statutory functions and that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek to recover that amount. Of course, they Contended that there was no cause of action for any claim by way of damages against them. The learned District Munsif of Kumbakonam who tried the suit upheld the defence of the Municipality and non-suited the plaintiff. Of course, they Contended that there was no cause of action for any claim by way of damages against them. The learned District Munsif of Kumbakonam who tried the suit upheld the defence of the Municipality and non-suited the plaintiff. There was an appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff which was heard by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A.S. No. 45 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the trial Court in holding that the cart-tax was properly levied in conformity with the statute, but held that there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Municipality to levy a sum of Rs. 2 by way of tax on the bulls, as no notice was served on the plaintiff calling upon him to pay the tax and as section 102 (1) of the Act was not shown to have been complied with. With regard to feeding charges, the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that, inasmuch as the cart, which was subject to tax, was properly seized, the feeding charges in respect of the bulls incurred by the Municipality were properly payable by the plaintiff In the result, the learned Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs 2, but otherwise confirmed the judgment and the decree of the trial Court. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. The judgment and decree of the Courts below in regard to the levy of the cart-tax are clearly unexceptionable. There was evidence in the case to justify the jurisdiction of the Municipality to levy cart-tax on the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the lower appellate Court was vitiated as the presumption under section 99 (4) of the Madras District Municipalities Act invoked, cannot have application in respect of a cart, as the language of that provision was confined only to ‘carriage’ as defined under the Act. There is, no doubt, force in this contention; but it must be pointed out that that is not the only basis on which the Municipality sought to levy cart-tax on the plaintiff’s cart. There are no grounds for interference in Second Appeal on this question of cart-tax properly levied by the Municipality and recovered from the plaintiff. There is, no doubt, force in this contention; but it must be pointed out that that is not the only basis on which the Municipality sought to levy cart-tax on the plaintiff’s cart. There are no grounds for interference in Second Appeal on this question of cart-tax properly levied by the Municipality and recovered from the plaintiff. The Municipality has not preferred an appeal with regard to the disallowance of the levy of tax on bulls. It has therefore to be taken that the levy on the bulls was unlawful and without jurisdiction. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Municipality can claim the feeding charges of the bulls for the period of the custody of the bulls with them, once it is found that they had no authority to seize the bulls. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that rule 32 (1) of the Rules framed under Schedule IV of the Act can only apply to a case where the original seizure itself was permissible in law. I agree with this contention. It follows that the Municipality had no claim by way of reimbursement of the feeding charges in respect of the bulls. The plaintiff will therefore be entitled to a decree in addition to the decree already passed in his favour, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24. The Second Appeal is partly allowed, and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal. No leave. R.M. ------ Appeal allowed.