Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. These revision petitions arise out of suits filed by the various plaintiffs, respondents in each of the revision petitions, for recovery of amounts collected from them by the defendants in each of the suits as Central sales tax in respect of certain sales of arecanuts effected by the defendants to the plaintiffs who are dealers at Tiruvarur, Madras State. As all the above revision petitions raise the same question of law, they have to be dealt with together. The defendant in each of the suits is a dealer in arecanuts at Shimoga in Mysore State. They have been selling arecanuts to the plaintiffs during the years 1961 to 1964. The defendants as sellers have been charging and collecting Central sales tax from the plaintiffs on their sales of arecanuts on the basis that the transactions were inter-State sales attracting the levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tax thus collected has been shown separately in the varies invoices issued by the defendant in each of the suits. The sales tax collected by the defendants from the plaintiffs had been originally remitted by the defendants to the Mysore sales tax authorities. Subsequently, the Supreme Court on 10th November, 1964, held in State of Mysore v. Y. L. Setty & Sons that though section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act is the charging section, the liability to pay tax is subject to the other provisions of the Act, that section 9(2) provides that tax shall be calculate at the same rates and in the same manner as would heave been done if the sale had, in facts, taken place inside the appropriate State, that the tax under the Central Act shall be levied in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods, under the general sale tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected, and that, therefore, if no tax was exigible in respect of the same transactions under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, no tax was payable under the Central Act. Relying on the said decision, the sales tax authorities of Mysore State refunded the tax collected on inter-State Sales of arecanuts to the defendants in or about 1967. Relying on the said decision, the sales tax authorities of Mysore State refunded the tax collected on inter-State Sales of arecanuts to the defendants in or about 1967. The plaintiffs who became aware of the said refund of the tax have filed various suits in the year 1969 for recovery of the amounts paid by them as sales tax from the defendants. According to them, the Central sales tax has been paid by them under a mistaken impression that the Central sales tax was livable on the inter-State sales of arecanuts by the Mysore dealers. However, with a view to get over the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Central Act 28 of 1969), had been enacted by the Parliament under which section 9 of the principal Act was amended with retrospective effect, so as to enable the levy of tax on inter-State sales whether such sales are eligible to tax in the concerned State or not, and all the assessments made already had been validated notwithstanding any decree or order of any court to the contrary.The defendants had resisted the suit on various grounds. One of the grounds raised was that they did not get any refund of the tax from the sales tax authorities. But the trial court did not accept that plea but held that on consideration of the evidence that the defendants had got refund of the sales tax paid by them from the sales tax authorities in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. In these revisions the factum of refund of tax was not disputed before us. The other defences taken were : (1) that the suit are barred by limitation as they have been filed more than 3 years after the payment of the tax, (2) that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, and (3) that, in any event, the suits are not maintainable in view of Central Act 28 of 1969. These defences were considered by the trial court in detail but were rejected. We, therefore, proceed to consider the said contentions seriatim. These defences were considered by the trial court in detail but were rejected. We, therefore, proceed to consider the said contentions seriatim. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contents that the sales tax amounts refunded to the defendants by the Mysore sales tax authorities are not monies had and received for the plaintiffs' use and that, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot rely to article 24 of the Limitation Act of 1963. According to the learned counsel, the suits should have been filed within three years from the actual date of payment of the tax and that the suits having been fled in 1969, long after the said period of three years, they are barred by time. Therefore, the first point for consideration is whether article 24 applied to the facts of these cases. That article provides a period of three years from the date when the money is received for suits of the description "for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs' use" * . In Royal Bank of Canada v. R. ( 1913 AC 283 at 296), Viscount Haldane has laid down the legal principles thus : "It is a well-established principle of the English common law that when money has been received by one person which in justice and equity belongs to another, under circumstances which render the receipt of it a receipt by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, the latter may recover as for money had and received to his use." * The above principle has been adopted in this courts also (vide Mohammed Wahib v. Mahomed Ameer ((1905) I.L.R. 32 Cal 527) and A. V. Subba Rao v. State In Johari Lal v. B. S. Co-operative Bank 1959 AIR(Pat) 477), it has been held that where money is receive by the defendant from a third person directly or impliedly for and on behalf of the plaintiff, that will be a clearest case for the application of article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangaraju 1964 AIR(SC) 485), the court has observed : "Therefore, I hold that, to the present case, which is a suit for money illegally collected by the Government from the plaintiff, article 62 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act applies. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangaraju 1964 AIR(SC) 485), the court has observed : "Therefore, I hold that, to the present case, which is a suit for money illegally collected by the Government from the plaintiff, article 62 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act applies. The cases, which are binding on me, have pointed out that when the money was received by the defendant, it need not have been in fact received for the plaintiff's use. When the exaction is illegal the court applies a fiction that the defendant received the money for the plaintiff's use, because the defendant in justice and equity is bound to refund it to the pontiff and has no right to retain it." * In A. V. Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh