M.L. Krishnamoorthi (Deceased) and Another vs Gudiyattam Municipality

M. Venugopal, J.—The appellant/plaintiff (during his lifetime) has preferred the present Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree

dated 31.3.1998 passed in A.S.No. 31 of 1995 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in confirming the judgment and decree

dated 29.7.1994 in O.S. No. 625 of 1982 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam. Pending Second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff

expired on 1.5.2003 and his son has been brought on record as 2nd Appellant as per order made by this Court in C.M.P. No. 19176 of 2005.

After the death of the original appellant/plaintiff, his son as Legal Representative has been brought on record as 2nd Appellant in the Second

Appeal and he is prosecuting the Second Appeal before this Court.

The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, while passing the judgment in A.S. No. 31 of 1995 on 31.3.1998, has

among other things observed that ""On 19.4.1981, it comes to be known that the respondent/municipality has not taken any unlawful proceedings

to collect the Tax from the 2nd Appellant''s father viz., the original plaintiff and also that the suit filed by the appellant''s father as plaintiff against the

Respondent/Municipality is not valid as per Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and that the finding rendered by the

trial Court in this regard is a correct one. Further, it has also observed that at that time of occurrence, one Murugaiyan has been the Commissioner

of the respondent/municipality. As such, the proceedings ought to have been initiated by the respondent/plaintiff against him only. Also that as

against Murugaiyan, then the Commissioner of the respondent/defendant/municipality, the suit should have been filed in his individual capacity and

as such, the suit filed is not maintainable and dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1994 in

O.S. No. 625 of 1982 passed by the trial Court.

Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 and 2 Issues and one Additional Issue have been framed for determination. On behalf of the plaintiff,

witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-39 have been marked. On the side of the defendant/municipality,

witnesses D.W.1 has been examined and Exhibit B-1 to Exhibit B-6 have been marked.

The trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that it is not

established on the part of the plaintiff that the occurrence has taken place on 18.4.1981 and further, it does not establish as to how the plaintiff has

been defamed resulting in damages and as such, has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the compensation. Added further, it has also

opined that the occurrence that has taken place on 18.4.1981, the Commissioner has tendered an apology, is not to be accepted and also that, the

proceedings of the defendant/municipality are not against law. Furthermore, for the proceedings initiated by the defendant/municipality, no suit can

be filed as per Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Act 5 of 1920) and resultantly, it dismissed the suit with costs of the

defendant/municipality to be paid by the plaintiff.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 31.3.1998 in A.S. No.

31 of 1995, the appellant''s father (plaintiff before the trial Court) has filed the instant Second Appeal as an aggrieved person before this Court.

Pending the Second Appeal, the 2nd Appellant (Legal Representative of the deceased plaintiff) has since been brought on record as per order

dated 2.3.2006 made in C.M.P. No. 19676 of 2005.

At the time of admission, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law for determination.

(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in saying that the suit is not maintainable u/s 352 of the said Act?

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Question of Law:

According to the Learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant''s father (erstwhile plaintiff) has filed the suit initially in O.S. No. 2425 of 1981 on

the file of the Learned District Munsif, Vellore and later, the said suit has been transferred to the file of the Learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam,

North Arcot District and numbered as O.S. No. 625 of 1982, wherein a relief has been sought against the defendant/municipality to pay a sum of

Rs. 1,000/-, being the damages claimed by the plaintiff, together with future interest from the date of Plaint till date of payment etc. As a matter of

fact, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant''s father (original plaintiff) has been the Hereditary Trustee of Sri

Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam, which owns several buildings in Gudiyattam Town and since the taxation in respect of the buildings owned by

the temple has been steeply increased out of proportion and the appellant''s father in his capacity as Hereditary Trustee filed Original Suits viz.

O.S. No. 599, 601, 605 and 611 of 1977 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Vellore and obtained an order of injunction against the

respondent/defendant/municipality from collecting over and above the old tax. Inspite of the injunction order, the respondent/defendant/municipality

has again arbitrarily acted with a malice revised and increased the tax by 300% disregarding the instructions issued by the Government and

violating the principles of District Municipalities Act.

The Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all of a sudden on 17.4.1981, the servants of the defendant/municipality threatened to attach

by means of distraint and remove the family diety Sri Kannika Parameswari, if the tax is not paid before 20.4.1981 and as such, a Police complaint

has been lodged. Because of the complaint lodged by the appellant''s father, the respondent/defendant/municipality wantonly with a view to defame

and bring down the reputation of the appellant''s father (plaintiff) on 18.4.1981 ordered its staff from the level of Revenue Inspector to other lower

staff to encircle shop-cum-house and take away the personal properties of the plaintiff by force.

The Learned counsel for the appellant contends that on 18.4.1981 at about 6. pm, the respondent/defendant''s two Revenue Inspectors,

Building Inspector, 6 Bill Collectors, 3 Office Assistants, 20 menial staff and Others have come to the house of the appellant''s father 204-A,

Thalayatham Bazzar and encircled his house and forcibly entered into the shop to loot the personal properties of the plaintiff. A tom tom has also

been made in the street and several people gathered and watched unlawful action of the defendants. By such action of the

respondent/defendant/municipality the appellant''s father (plaintiff) has been defamed and his reputation has gone down in the eye of others.

The pith and substance of the submission of the Learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent/defendant/municipality has no business

to authorise his men to enter into the private shop-cum-house (the appellant''s father) in regard to the recovery of the alleged tax due from Sri

Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam and that too without any proper notice as visualised in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

It is the case of the appellant that the respondent/defendant (municipality) has exceeded his powers and not acted as a responsible officer of

the municipality. Because of the respondent/defendant/Municipality''s hasty uncalled for and high handled action, the appellant''s father (plaintiff)

suffered mental agony and loss of reputation. Since he has been defamed in others eyes.

It is to be noted that before filing the suit, the appellant''s father (plaintiff) has issued a statutory notice dated 7.9.1981 as per Section 350 of

the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant/municipality that the suit is not maintainable either in law or

on facts and that the appellant''s father (plaintiff) owed a huge sum to the respondent/defendant/Municipality and therefore, the

respondent/defendant/municipality has been perforced to issue a warrant to the appellant''s father (plaintiff) to pay the arrears of tax as per the

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Act 5 of 1920).

That apart, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant/municipality that the appellant''s father (plaintiff in suit) has

been filing case after case and caused inconvenience to the respondent/defendant municipalities and also that the respondent/defendant or its

employees have not performed any act/deed with a view to defame the appellant''s father.

To appreciate the merits of the matter in a proper and realistic fashion, this Court makes an useful reference to the evidence of witnesses

P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1, to promote substantial cause of Justice.

P.W.1 (plaintiff-appellant''s father) in his evidence has deposed that he has been a Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kannika Parameswari

Devasthanam from the year 1968 and before that his father has been the trustee and he is running a Pawn Shop situated after ten shops belonging

to Devasthanam and during the year 1976, the tax has been increased by the Municipalities and therefore, he has obtained an injunction in Vellore

Court and after the increase of tax during the year 1976, the tax has been collected and that he has not filed the receipts for payment of tax and it is

not correct to state that till this date, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- stands an arrear of tax and from the year 1982, one Murugaiyan has been the

Commissioner of the respondent/defendant municipality and there has been no animosity personally.

P.W.1 in his evidence (in cross examination) has deposed that he has not been issued with a notice by the Respondent/Municipality prior to the

attachment and when the defendant/municipality people again informed that they have come for attachment and if no money is paid, they will attach

and he paid the tax our of fear and the respondent/defendant/municipality people have received the money and have left the place and the

respondent/defendant/municipality has put tom tom for attaching the property and at the time of receiving the money and leaving the place, they

have put tom tom for collecting the money and in the present case, no attachment has taken place, because of the reason that he has paid the tax.

Continuing further, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that in his Plaint or in his notice, he has not mentioned that the tax alleged to be paid on

18.4.1981 has been issued with a receipt by the Municipalities on 31.3.1981. Moreover, he has taken the money from his Pawn Shop to pay the

arrears of tax amount for which he has not filed any documents and on 17.4.1981, the Defendant''s men have threatened him by saying that before

20.4.1981, he has to pay the arrears of tax failing which they threatened to attach. Also, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that in Exhibit A-8 to Exhibit

A-21 Receipts, it is mentioned as ''payment of tax has been made on 31.3.1981'' and he affixed his signature by mentioning ''paid under protest''.

The evidence of P.W.1 goes to the effect that in Exhibit A-7, the Police have received the Complaint on 18.4.1981 and that the Municipality

has not issued him with a notice demanding the old tax.

The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that in Santhapettai, there is an office for Sri Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam inside the Temple and

on 18.4.1981 at about 5, 6 p.m. in the evening, while he has been doing business in a Shop, at that time the next Shop owner has come and

informed him that in the President''s house, there is huge crowd and making a noise and on seeing, he has come to know that the Municipality

known persons have come there, the Revenue Inspector, Bill Collector and in all approximately 10 persons have come there and another 10

sanitary workers have come there and when he enquired, they informed that they have come for recovering the temple Tax amount.

P.W.2 in his further evidence has also deposed that after seeing the huge crowd, the appellant''s father (plaintiff) has become funk and he has

not been in a position to speak and he has been in a pitiable plight and informed the Municipality people that how much amount will have to be

paid, it will be paid after receipt of the amount from the plaintiff and the municipality people informed that the money will have to be paid

immediately and the amount has been paid to the municipality and that money belongs to Chettiar and at the time, he cannot do anything and that

the appellant''s father has been defamed because of the payment of money towards municipality for which they have received the receipt and the

municipality people have informed that they have come with a Distraint warrant and also put a tom tom and moreover, they have shown the

Distraint warrant.

P.W.2 (in his cross examination) has categorically deposed that it is not correct to state that on 18.4.1981, the

respondent/defendant/municipality people have not gone near the house of the appellant (plaintiff''s father) and that the appellant''s father and his

son will be doing business in the Shop.

The evidence of D.W.1 (Junior Assistant of the respondent/defendant/municipality) is that when he has come as a Revenue Inspector the

appellant''s father has not paid the tax to the Devasthanam and he has requested him to pay the tax but, the appellant''s father informed him that he

will pay the tax within 4 or 5 days and from the month 1980 December, 3 or 4 months he has demanded the tax from the appellant''s father, but he

has not paid the tax and therefore, the higher authorities have been informed and accordingly, a warrant has been issued by them and for recovery

of the Tax in his name, the warrant has been given and on 31.3.1981 for the purpose of collection of tax, he along with Bill Collector

Radhakrishnan, Dhandapani, Office Assistant Arumugham and 2 sanitary workers have gone to the Shop of the appellant''s father, who has been

present at the time in his shop and the appellant''s father shop and house are situated in the same place and 10 shops later from the house of

appellant''s father, the Devasthanam buildings are situated. Further, when he demanded the tax from the appellant''s father in his shop, it has been

around 3.00 p.m. and he has given the warrant to the appellant''s father (plaintiff) who informed that he will pay the amount and for the amount due

to be paid by the appellant''s father, the Bill Collector presented the calculation to him.

It is the further evidence of D.W.1 that the appellant''s father has gone to the next Shop and phoned to Panduranga Chettiar and one P.P.

Stores owner and Panduranga Chettiar have come to the Shop and they have given the money to the appellant''s father, who in turn has paid the

money to the Bill Collector and in turn, the Bill Collector has issued the receipts Exhibit A-8 to Exhibit A-21 and thus, the receipts have been

received by the appellant''s father on 18.4.1981.

Moreover, D.W.1 proceeds to state that after payment of the money by the appellant''s father, they returned and also Radhakrishnan, Bill

Collector has paid the money collected from the appellant''s father to the Municipality on 31.3.1981 and the said entry finds a place in Exhibit B-2

Ledger and also after payment, the same has been registered in Exhibit B.3 Demand Tax Register and that the entry has also been made during

31.3.1981.

It is the specific evidence of D.W.1 that once money has been paid on 31.3.1981 and on 18.4.1981, they have not put tom tom and also they

have not surrounded the house of the appellant''s father with the aid of 30 Municipality staff members and he does not know about the Complaint

given by the appellant''s father on 18.4.1981 before the Police. Further, D.W.1, (To a specific suggestion) has categorically has deposed that it is

not correct to state that on 18.4.1981, they have acted unlawfully.

It is to be pointed out that the specific case of the respondent/defendant/Municipality is that they have collected the arrears of tax from the

appellant''s father on 31.3.1981 and that no incident as alleged by the appellant''s father has taken place on 18.4.1981. Before the trial Court,

Exhibit A-28, a Sworn Affidavit of the Commissioner of the respondent/municipality dated 17.8.1992, has been filed a perusal of the better

affidavit. Exhibit A.28 clear indicates that the subsequent Commissioner, who has sworn the Affidavit, has clearly stated that he has no personal

knowledge about the events and taken charge on 5.3.1982 and he has also gone to the extent of making a mention that he has sincerely expressed

regret for the inconvenience caused to the appellant (plaintiff''s father) by his predecessors. In short, in Exhibit A-28, the subsequent Commissioner

of the respondent/defendant/municipality has clearly stated that though he has not been in-charge of the office at that time when a lapse occurred

on behalf of the predecessors and on behalf of the Municipality, the office has regretted and tendered an apology etc.

Nowhere, from a reading of Exhibit A-28 Sworn Affidavit of the subsequent Commissioner, it can be inferred that the

respondent/defendant/municipality or its men, have acted an in unlawful manner at the time of collecting/recovering the tax amount from the

appellant''s father (plaintiff).

The term ''Reputation'' is what is reputed. It is the common knowledge of the community or a general opinion in regard to an individual. The

word ''Reputation'' is meant to denote the estimation in which a person is held by others, the character imputed to him in the community or the

society to which he belongs. In fact, in Sardar Amar Singh v. K.S. Badalia, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 693 (Pat) at page 697, it is held that ''a person may

not possess property, but still he can have a good character and respectability.''

The term ''Harm'' has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. In its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt; injury; damage, impairment, moral

wrong or evil. Also, the word ''Harm'' in Section 95 of Indian Penal Code includes financial loss, loss of reputation, mental worry, or even

apprehension of injury as per decision in Veeda Menezes Vs. Yusuf Khan and Another, The word ''Harm'' in Section 499 of Indian Penal Code is

to be the reputation of an aggrieved party. Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act allows as admissible the evidence of general reputation and of

general disposition but not of particular facts or traits.

That apart, ''Malice'' is a State of mind of a person. A person can rebut the evidence of malice of the plaintiff often malice is inferred from the

lack of reasonable and probable cause. It must be proved by a plaintiff that the Defendant has animus i.e. by indirect or improper motive or ill will

or by spite.

At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the appellant''s father (plaintiff) has filed a suit after issuing

prior notice to the respondent/defendant/municipal authorities and has issued a statutory notice on 7.9.1981 as per Section 350 of the Tamil Nadu

District Municipalities Act. In this connection, the Learned counsel has obviously referred to Section 350(2) of the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920, which reads hereunder:

(2) Every such suit shall be commenced within six months after the date on which the cause of action arose or in case of a continuing injury or

damage during such continuance or within six months after the ceasing thereof.

However, this Court pertinently points out that Section 350(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which reads as follows:

No suit for damages or compensation shall be instituted against the municipal council, any municipal authority, officer or servant, or any person

acting under the direction of the same, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or any rule, by-law,

regulation or order made under it or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act, or any rule, by-law, regulation, or order

made under it until the expiration of one month after a notice has been delivered or left at the municipal office or at the place of abode of such

officer, servant or person, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and the place of abode of the intending plaintiff; and the plaint

shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.

Apart from the above, Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920, enjoins as hereunder:

Indemnity to the Government, Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, municipal authorities, officer and agents. - No suit shall be maintainable

against the (State Government), the district collector, the revenue divisional officer or any municipal chairman, executive authority, officer or servant

or any person acting under the direction of any municipal chairman, executive authority, officer or servant, or of a magistrate, in respect of anything

in good faith done under this Act or any rule, by-law, regulation or order made under it.

It is to be borne in mind that Section 350 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Act 5 of 1920) is applicable only to suits for

compensation for wrongful acts committed under colour of the Act, and not suits for damages in relation to violation of any contract as per decision

in The Municipal Council of Kumbakonam v. Veeraperumal Padayachi, 1915 The Madras Weekly Notes 143 : LNIND 1914 Mad 403 : (1915)

1 MLJ 147.

Equally, Section 350 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, applies to suits for damages and compensation and it does not apply to a

suit for refund of Companies'' tax paid to a Municipal Council under protest as per decision in The Municipal Council Vs. The Bombay Company,

Ltd., .

As a matter of fact, the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in cases where the abuse of

power by Municipality is alleged or where the action taken by the Municipality is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

A suit for damage for civil wrong or even tort will lie even if a criminal prosecution is resorted to at the earliest point of time.

A Civil Court''s Jurisdiction is open where action is taken without Jurisdiction under any Act as per decision in Sardara Singh (Dead) by Lrs.

and Another Vs. Sardara Singh (Dead) and Others, . In Babu v. Member Secretary, Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai, 2009 (3)

CTC 609, 610 (Mad), it is held that ''Civil suits against CMDA or Municipal Corporation in respect of action by the authorities are not

maintainable.''

In the present case on hand, it is not established on the side of his father (original plaintiff in the suit) to the satisfaction of this Court that the

respondent/defendant/Municipality people viz., the Bill Collectors, sanitary workers and others have come to the Shop of the appellant''s father

and has threatened him to pay the arrears of tax pertaining to Sri Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam. Further, the plaintiff (appellant''s father) has

also not established to the subjective satisfaction of this Court that the respondent/defendant/municipality employees have unlawfully trespassed

into the shop of the appellant''s Pawn Shop and also, he has been defamed at the time of collection of the tax. Though the Learned counsel for the

appellant has sought in aid of the evidence of P.W.2, it is to be pointed out the P.W.2 happens to be a very close persons of the appellant''s father

and his evidence shows that he is only an interested person. Even otherwise, when the respondent/defendant/municipality has come out with a

categorical plea that no such incident has taken place on 18.4.1981 and the defendant/municipality or its people have not surrounded the house of

the appellant''s father, then, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that inasmuch as the respondent/defendant/municipality has performed its

bona fide and earnest act in demanding and collecting the tax from the appellant/plaintiff''s father in respect of the tax due amount relating to the Sri

Kannika Parameswari Temple, the suit filed by the appellant''s father as plaintiff, is not maintainable before the trial Court, as opined by this Court.

The early burden to establish want of reasonable and probable cause and malice are always on the plaintiff. Also, this Court is of the considered

view that the action of the respondent/defendant/municipality in initiating necessary action as per the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920,

towards the recovery of tax due amount to the Sri Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as one

in and by which the respondent/defendant/municipality employees, its office or its men have acted under the colour of office. Moreover, the plaintiff

(deceased) viz., the appellant''s father has not discharged the proof enjoined upon him to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause for

the conduct of the respondent/defendant.

Looking at from any angle, this Court holds that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Court is quite correct in coming

to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellant''s father as per Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, is not maintainable

because of the simple fact that the respondent/defendant/municipality has exercised its bona fide, honest, lawful and legitimate right of demanding

and collecting the arrears of tax from the appellant''s father (Plaintiff) in good faith in respect of the Temple. Accordingly, the Substantial Question

of Law No. 1 is answered against the appellant. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Consequently, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge dated 31.3.1998 in A.S. No. 31 of

1995, are confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal.