The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not impliedly ousted when the legality of tax is questioned based on exemption claimed under Section 132(1)(b) of the Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT

N J Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Latur, dated 7th March, 2020, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.108 of 2019, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant and affirmed the order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur dated 4th November, 2019, rejecting the application [Exh.5] preferred by the petitioner seeking injunction against the respondent/ defendant - Municipal Corporation, from taking coercive action for recovery of the tax levied upon the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under :-

a] The petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It imparts education to the children belonging to all strata of society. The plaintiff-trust runs Shrikishan Somani Prathamik Madyamik Vidyalaya at property No. B-3/366 [old property No. R-8/153/1]. The said property is solely used for educational purpose.

b] The defendant-Municipal Corporation levied taxes on the property of the trust and issued demand notice on 11th September, 2017. The plaintiff lodged objection to the levy of taxes as the plaintiff, being a public charitable trust, the property was exempt from taxes under section 132(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations, Act, 1949 [the Act, 1949]. The plaintiff claims that the defendant-Municipal Corporation did not decide the said objection. Instead, the defendant issued a fresh demand notice on 1st of September, 2018 followed by a final demand notice dated 8th May, 2019, calling upon the plaintiff to pay the taxes within two days thereof, with threat of coercive action in the event of default.

c] The plaintiff, thus, instituted the suit, being RCS No.301 of 2019 seeking declaration that the demand notice dated 1st September, 2018 and the final notice dated 8th May, 2019 are illegal and without authority and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal Corporation from levying and demanding the tax on the property of the plaintiff-trust. In the suit, the plaintiff preferred an application for temporary injunction [Exh.5] seeking to restrain the defendant-Corporation from attaching and selling the properties of the plaintiff trust towards the recovery of the taxes.

d] The defendant-Municipal Corporation resisted the claim. It was denied that the plaintiff is a charitable trust. The defendant-Corporation contended that the property in question is not being exclusively used for imparting education. The eligibility of the plaintiff to get exemption under section 132 of the Act, 1949 was contested. It was contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the question in controversy as there was a remedy of appeal under section 406 of the Act, 1949 and, thus, jurisdiction of the Civil Court was impliedly barred.

e] The learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application for temporary injunction holding that the question as to whether the plaintiff is a charitable trust or not is a matter for trial and, at the interim stage, the Corporation cannot be restrained from recovering the tax as the Corporation cannot function or meet its financial obligation, if its source of revenue is blocked by an interim order.

f] Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred an appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.109 of 2019 before the District Court. The learned District Judge was persuaded to uphold the order passed by the Civil Judge. Placing reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Akola Municipal Corporation vs. Akola Gujarati Samaj, (2018) 5 MhLJ 267, the learned District Judge held that the question as to whether a property is exempt f