K.A. Arokkiam vs The Didigul Municipality

A. Selvam, J.—Challenge in these second appeals is to the common judgment rendered in Appeal Suit Nos. 241 and 107 of 2004 by the

Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, wherein, the common judgment rendered in Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 by the Principal District

Munsif Court, Dindigul is reversed.

The Appellant in both appeals as Plaintiff has instituted Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 on the file of the trial Court praying to declare

that the assessment made by the Defendant to the suit property on 02.04.2001 is illegal and also for passing permanent injunction for restraining

the Defendant from collecting the amount mentioned in the assessment.

It is averred in the plaints filed in Original suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 that the Plaintiff has newly constructed the suit property and the same

has been assessed to property tax by the Defendant. The property tax assessed by the Defendant on the basis of zones, is nothing but arbitrary

and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The assessment area within Dindigul Municipality limits, has been divided as A, B, C.

The main bazar and business centre have been classified as ''A'' zone. The zones of ''B'' and ''C'' are classified according to its locations and

importance. The cost of vacant site in ''A'' zone is Rs. 1,000/-per square foot. The suit property is situate in a residential area and the same is

called as Nehriju Nahar. The suit property is not situate in an important place. The shops constructed by the Plaintiff are not fully let out. The

Defendant has classified the suit property as ''A'' zone. Under the said circumstances, the method of assessment made by the Defendant is totally

erroneous and the same has been done without proper application of provisions of the Act. The Plaintiff has filed a revision petition and the same

has been dismissed on 03.06.2000. The Plaintiff has also filed an appeal to the Council of the Defendant in Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 stating

that the method of assessment made by the Defendant on the basis of zones is erroneous. The Council of the Defendant without considering the

method adopted by the Defendant is erroneous, has nominally reduced the annual rental value of the suit property and passed its order on

02.04.2001. The Defendant has adopted erroneous basis for fixing annual rental value. Under the said circumstances, the present suits have been

filed for the reliefs sought for in the plaints.

In the written statements filed on the side of the Defendant in both suits, it is averred that the suit property is situate in 5th revenue ward. The suit

property has not been properly described in the plaints. The present suits are not legally maintainable. As per Government Order 127 passed in the

month of May 1999, the suit cannot be filed against the final order of assessment passed by the appellate authority. The assessment for the suit

property has been made according to law and also following all the relevant rules and regulations specified in case of assessment. The suit property

has come under the purview of ''A'' zone. Before assessment, the suit property has been duly inspected and observed all formalities prescribed in

law and rules and regulations. The Defendant has fixed zones in accordance with locality and situation of revenue wards. The Defendant has rightly

assessed me house tax to the suit property and there is no merit in the suits and the same deserve dismissal.

On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues in both suits and after contemplating the rival

evidence adduced on either side, has decreed the suits as prayed for. Against the common judgment passed by the trial Court, the Defendant as

Appellant has filed Appeal Suit Nos. 241 and 107 of 2004 on the file of the first appellate Court.

The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the relevant records has come to the conclusion that against the

assessment orders passed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has preferred Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 and the same have been dismissed on

02.04.2001. Under the said circumstances, as per Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), the Plaintiff ought to have

appealed before the concerned District Court and the Plaintiff has failed to do it and therefore, the present suits are not legally maintainable and

ultimately allowed both the appeals and consequently dismissed both the suits. Against the common judgment passed by the first appellate court,

the present second appeals have been filed at the instance of the Plaintiff as Appellant.

As agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, these second appeals are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission, by way of

common Judgment.

On the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff in both the appeals, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:

(i) Whether the reasoning of the lower appellate Court that the subject civil suit is not maintainable and barred by Section 89 of Tamil Nadu

District Municipalities Act is correct in law?

(ii) Whether the Court of Principal District Munsif is vested with the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief that the assessment of the property tax is

illegal when it has been averred that the very basis of assessment is wrong and when DW.1 examined on the side of the Municipality admits that

the fair rent of the building has not been determined by applying the provisions of Rent control Act before assessing the property to tax?

(iii) whether the learned lower appellate Court misdirected himself by relying on the decision reported in 2007 (5) Code of CPC 465 M.L.

Krishnamoorthy(died) and Anr. v. The Tamil Nadu Government rep.by Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply

Department, Madras"" which pertains to non-maintainability of writ petition and whose facts are clearly distinguishable?

The sum and substance of the case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is the absolute property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant has assessed

the same by way of fixing annual rental value on the basis of zones. The suit property is not situate in an important place and the Defendant has

erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit property comes within the purview of ''A'' zone and further, the Defendant has failed to follow the

relevant pro-visions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Under the said circumstances, the assessment orders passed by the

Defendant are illegal and in order to declare the same as illegal and also for passing permanent injunction against the Defendant from collecting the

amount mentioned in the assessment orders, the present suits have been filed.

Per contra it has been contended on the side of the Defendant that the suit property comes within the purview of ''A'' zone and after observing

all the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and also after following all the rules and regulations, the

Defendant has fixed house tax to the suit property and further against the assessment orders, the Plaintiff has preferred appeals and after the

dismissal of the same, he ought to have preferred appeal before the concerned District court and therefore, the present suits are not legally

maintainable before the civil forum and altogether the present suits are liable to be dismissed.

As expounded earlier, the trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for. But the first appellate Court has dismissed the suits mainly on the

ground that the present suits are not legally maintainable in view of the appeals preferred by the Plaintiff against the assessment orders passed by

the Defendant. Under the said circumstances, the following points have become emerged for consideration:

(a) Whether the present suits are legally maintainable before Civil forum?

(b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in common judgment rendered in Appeal Suit Nos. 241 and 107 of 2004

are legally sustainable?

(c) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaints?

The present suits have been instituted mainly on the ground that the Defendant has erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit property is

situate in ''A'' zone and also failed to follow the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) in substance.

Before considering the rival legal submissions made by either counsel, it would be apropos to look into as to whether the assessment orders

passed by the Defendant are in consonance with the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and also in consonance with Section 4 of

the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

The assessments made by the Defendant have been marked as Exs.B2 and B3 and the relevant orders sent to the Plaintiff have been marked

as Exs.A1 and A2. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the evidence adduced by D.W.1. One Muthukumar, Municipal Revenue Inspector

has been examined as DW1. During the course of cross examination he has stated that in Exs.B2 and B3 his signature is not found and the officers

namely Palaniappan and Sarvothayam have inspected the suit property and he has not known personally about Exs.B2 and B3. Further he has

candidly admitted that he cannot say about the valuation of the suit property. Further in Ex.A3, the valuation of the suit property has not been

mentioned. In Exs.B2 and B3 it has not been mentioned that the valuation has been fixed as per Ex.B10. Further he has categorically admitted that

assessment can be made as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

From the evidence given by DW1 it is easily discernible that DW1 is not a competent witness to speak about the method of assessment

adopted by the Defendant. The officer who inspected the suit property and also assessed house tax is alive and also in service. But the Defendant

has not examined him so as to prove that Exs.B2 and B3 have been made in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Even from the cursory look of the evidence given by D.W.1, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that

Exs.B2 and B3 have not been made in consonance with the provisions of the said Act. The main attack made on the side of the Plaintiff in both the

suits is that the assessments in question have not been in consonance with the existing laws and the same have not been made in substance with the

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Therefore, a primordial duty is cast upon the Defendant to prove that Exs.B2 and B3 have

come into existence only on the basis of existing rules and also in substance with the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). But as

stated earlier, DW1 has simply given evidence without knowing the circumstances under which Exs.B2 and B3 have come into existence. Since on

the side of the Defendant, it has not been established to the effect that Exs.B2 and B3 have come into existence in consonance as well as in

substance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), it very clear that the assessments in question are not proper.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff has laconically contended that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the

same is not situate in an important place and the Defendant is bound to assess house tax. But the Defendant without following the existing rules and

regulations and also not in substance with the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), has erroneously fixed assessments in question

and consequently passed orders which have been marked as Exs.A1 and A2 and against the orders passed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has

preferred Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 before the concerned appellate authority and the same have been dismissed, subsequently Revisions

have been filed before the Council of the Defendant and the Council of the Defendant has erroneously reduced the market value of the suit

property to a certain extent and since the assessments in question have not been made in accordance with and also in substance with the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), the present suits have been filed and the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the

same and the trial Court after considering all the legal points involved in the present suits, has rightly decreed the suits. But the first appellate Court

has erroneously given a finding to the effect that since the Plaintiff has preferred appeals and revisions against the assessment orders passed by the

Defendant, the present suits are not legally maintainable and therefore the approach made by the first appellate Court is totally erroneous. Under

the said circumstances, the common judgment passed by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

In order to repudiate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent/Defendant has also equally contended that the assessment orders passed by the Defendant have been marked as Exs.A1 and A2.

Against Exs.A1 and A2, the Plaintiff has preferred Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 and the same have been dismissed. Subsequently, revisions

have been filed before the Council of the Defendant and against the orders passed in Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999, as per the provision of

Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), the Plaintiff ought to have filed appeals before the concerned District Court.

But he failed to do so. Under the said circumstances, the present suits are not legally maintainable and the trial Court without considering the

impact of Section 89 of the said act, has erroneously decreed the suit. But the first appellate Court after analysing all the factual and legal points

involved in the present cases, has rightly dismissed the suits and therefore, the common judgment passed by the first appellate Court is perfectly

correct and the same does not require any interference.

Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) reads as follows:

Taxation Appeals Committee.-(1) There shall be a Taxation Appeals Committee for hearing and disposing of an appeal preferred by any

person who is not satisfied with the assessment order made by the executive authority under this Act other than the orders relating to the duty on

transfer of property.-

(i) for every Third Grade Municipality, town Panchayat consisting of the Chairman of the municipal council who shall be the Chairman of the

Taxation Appeals Committee and such number of members as may be notified by the State Government from among the members of the Third

Grade Municipality, town Panchayat;

(ii) for every municipality, consisting of the Chairman of the municipal council who shall also be the Chairman of the Taxation Appeals Committee

and four Councillors elected by the council.

(2) The business of the Taxation Appeals Committee shall be transacted in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in this behalf

(3) An appeal against the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee may be filed within thirty days from the date of the order to the District

Judge.

(4) No appeal shall be entertained by the District Judge, unless the Appellant deposits with the Third Grade Municipality, town Panchayat or

municipality, as the case may be, the entire amount of tax as decided by the Taxation Appeals Committee [and the Appellant shall continue to

deposit the property tax with the Third Grade Municipality, town Panchayat or, municipality, as the case may be, as decided by the Taxation

Appeal Committee with the disposal of the appeal by the District Judge]

(5) Where as a result of any order passed in an appeal any amount already deposited is in excess of the tax due, the difference, after deducting the

tax due, shall be adjusted towards the tax, and fine due in respect of any other period, by the municipality.

From the close reading of the provisions of the said section, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that there shall be a Taxation Appeals

Committee for hearing and disposing of an appeal or appeals preferred by any person, who is not satisfied with the assessment made by the

Executing Authority. Further it is made clear that against the order or orders passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee, appeal or appeals can be

filed within thirty days from the date of order before the concerned District Judge.

In the instant case, after receipt of Exs.A1 and A2, the Plaintiff has preferred Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 and the same have been

dismissed. It is an admitted fact that against the orders passed in Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999, no appeal or appeals has had been filed before

the concerned District Judge by the Plaintiff. But the Plaintiff has filed the present suits mainly on the ground that the assessments in question have

not been made in consonance with the existing rules and also in substance with the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).

From the rival submissions made by either counsel and also from the rival pleadings raised on either side, the only legal point that involved in

the present appeals is as to whether the present suits are legally maintainable before Civil forum against the assessment orders passed by the

Defendant.

On the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff the following decisions have been relied upon:

(a) In Dhulabhai and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, , the Honourable Apex Court has culled out the following principles

regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court:

(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the civil courts'' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if mere is

adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the

provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of

judicial procedure.

(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the

sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express

exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the

inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination

of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so constituted,

and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.

(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High

Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.

(4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of

certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy

to replace a suit.

(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegality collected a suit lies.

(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if

the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the

particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.

(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.

(b) In K.R. Abirami v. Kumbakonam Municipality rep. by its Executive Authority, Commissioner, Kumbakonam Town, (2008) 3 MLJ 649, this

Court has held that ""non compliance in substance and effect with Act, a suit challenging assessment is maintainable, in Civil Forum"".

(c) In Chellammal v. Alandur Municipality, rep. by it Commissioner, 1991 1 L.W. 110, this Court has held that a civil suit is maintainable if

enhanced assessment to tax is not on the basis of fair rent fixed under Act 18 of 1960 and in the absence of substantial compliance with

Municipality Act.

(d) In R. Govindarajan Vs. The Madurai Corporation, , this Court has held that annual value for levy of tax ought to be fixed with reference to fair

rent under the Rent Control Act.

(e) In Koothanallur Town Panchayat Board Vs. Mariam Beevi Ammal, , this Court has held that ""where the basis of levy itself is wrong or there is

no basis at all for the levy and in that sense there is no substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act, it is open to the civil Court to declare

the levy illegal and in fact it is the duty of the Court to do so. If the levy of tax by a local authority is within the framework of the Act and is in

substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act, certainly the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the levy is

excessive or not.

From the cumulative reading of the decisions referred to supra, the following aspects can easily be discerned:

(a) Assessment of house tax should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).

(b) Annual rental value of the building in question should be fixed on the basis of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent

Control) Act, 1960.

(c) If the assessment in question has been fixed in consonance or in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act (V of 1920), no Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain a suit.

(d) If assessment in question has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) or the

same has been made not in substantial compliance with the said Act, the civil court is certainly having jurisdiction so as to declare that the

assessment in question is illegal.

On the side of the Respondent/Defendant, the following decisions have been accited:

(a) In Srikant Kashinath Jituri and others Vs. Corporation of the City of Belgaum, , the Honourable Apex Court has held that ""where statute gives

finality to orders to special Tribunals, Civil court jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what civil courts would

normally do in suit

(b) In T.R. Krishnamoorthy, T.R. Vedaraman and T.R. Chandrasejaran v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner

(W.P. Nos. 20852 and 30324 of 2000), this Court has held that ""against enhancement of tax, appeal provisions are available so as to appeal

before Taxation Appellate Tribunal and before District Court. Under the said circumstances, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such

dispute since jurisdiction is seized by statute"".

(c) In P. Ramankutty Menon and P. Unnikrishnan v. The commissioner, Tiruvottiyur Municipality (Second Appeal Nos. 449 to 626 of 2009), this

Court has held that ""as per provision of Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), in case of enhanced assessment, the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly ousted"".

At this juncture; the facts mentioned in the said appeals are very much essential. The Plaintiffs in the concerned suits have contended that the

assessments in question have not been made as per the formula contained in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

But on the contrary, the contention of the Defendant therein is that the provisions of the said section have been followed. Further the Plaintiffs have

admitted that they paid half yearly property tax levied on the basis of market values of the property taxes without any demur or protest. Under the

said circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly ousted u/s 89 of the Tamil Nadu

District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Further, His Lordship has observed in paragraph 24 of the judgment that if assessment is not in substance

and in effect with the provisions of the said Act, Civil Suit is maintainable with regard to assessment of property tax.

(d) In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Krishnan A., Lineman Grade I, , this Court has held that ""in a case of industrial dispute, Civil Courts have

no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, since adjudication forum is created in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947"".

(e) In M.L. Krishnamoorthy (died) and M.K. Sathyamurthy Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu and The Gudiyattam Municipality, me Division

Bench of this Court has held ""that alternative remedy u/s 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) provides for appeal and

therefore, assessment can be effectively agitated in appeal"".

It has already been pointed out that if assessment in question has been made in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act (V of 1920) or in substantial compliance with the said Act, the assessment in question cannot be challenged before civil forum.

But at the same time, if assessment in question is totally erroneous and the same has been made not in substantial compliance with the provisions of

the said Act, Civil Court is certainly having jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.

In the instant case, as stated earlier, the specific contention of the Plaintiff is that the assessment orders in question have not been made in

accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and the evidence of DW1 is totally bereft to the effect

that Exs.A1 and A2 have been passed in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations and also in substantial compliance with the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Under the said circumstances, the present suits are legally maintainable.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Defendant has advanced his residual argument contending that since amending acts 65 of

1997 and 34 of 1998 are not in force, no appeal is maintainable u/s 89 of the amending Act 65 of 1997 and only remedy is to invoke Schedule IV

of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent

decision reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 167: 2008 2 L.W. 734 (Kuzhithurai Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Vettuvanni, Kanyakumari District

v. Secretary of Kanyakumari Diocese (CSI), Nagerocil, rep. by the Present Secretary, Kanyakumari District, wherein this Court has held that ""an

appeal to the District Judge filed pursuant to Section 89 of the amending Act 65 of 1997 and Act 34 of 1998, and the judgment and decree

passed therein, will be without jurisdiction and nullity, since the amending Acts are not in force and the consequence thereof will be the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), de hors the amending act, will be applicable"". His Lordship further observed that ""the

only difficulty that arises is with regard to remedy to the aggrieved owner of the property against the order passed by the Taxation Appeals

Committee"".

From the close reading of the recent decision rendered by this Court, it can be easily discerned that since amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of

1998 are not in force, appeal to the concerned District Judge is not legally maintainable. Further, the provisions of Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu

District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) do not dealt with appeal proceedings.

In the instant case, as stated earlier, after receipt of Exs.A1 and A2, the Plaintiff has filed Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 before the

Appellate Authority and the same have been dismissed.

The first appellate Court has dismissed the suits mainly on the ground that since the Plaintiff has filed Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 against

the assessment orders in question, he has no locus standi to institute the present suits and the only remedy available to him is to file appeal u/s 89 of

the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).

As per the recent decision reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 167 (Kuzhithurai Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Vettuvanni, Kanyakumari

District v. Secretary of Kanyakumari Diocese (CSI), Nagerocil, rep.by the Present Secretary, Kanyakumari District, Section 89 of the Tamil

Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) has become redundant and therefore, the finding given by the first appellate Court for the dismissal of

the suits is totally illegal.

In many places, it has been stated that the present suits have been instituted mainly on the ground that the assessments in question have not

been made in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and further the Defendant has

not followed the provision of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for arriving annual rental value of the

building. Under the said circumstances, the present suits are legally maintainable for the reliefs sought for therein. Simply because against the

assessment orders passed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has preferred Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority and simply

because the same have been dismissed, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the present suits are not maintainable and the Civil Court has

no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to make it nut shell that the instant cases have been

instituted mainly on the basis that the assessments in question are not in conformity with the provisions of the said Acts and therefore, it is needless

to say that the entire argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff is really having valid force and whereas, the

argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Defendant is sans merit.

The main substantial question of law raised on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff in both appeals is as to whether the first appellate Court is

correct in dismissing the suits in view of Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). It has already been dealt with in

many places that for the reasons stated in the plaints, the present suits are legally maintainable before civil forum and further the finding given by the

first appellate Court for the dismissal of the suits is totally erroneous. Under the said circumstances, the main substantial question of law raised on

the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff is decided in his favour and consequently the other substantial questions of law raised on the side of the

Appellant/Plaintiff are also legally sustainable and altogether the present second appeals can be allowed at the stage of admission.

In fine, these second appeals are allowed without cost at the stage of admission. Connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. The judgment

and decree passed in Appeal Suit Nos. 241 and 107 of 2004 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul are reversed and the judgment and decree

passed in Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul are restored. However, the

Respondent/Defendant is at liberty to make fresh assessments to the suit property by way of observing relevant provisions of law.