The central legal point established in the judgment is that the revision of taxes must comply with the prescribed procedures, including providing opportunity to the plaintiff and following existing rules, as outlined in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Rule 9.

1. The judgment and decree dated 11. 2003 passed in Appeal Suit No.119 of 2003 by the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant.

3. It is averred in the Plaint that the houses bearing door Nos.43-b, 48 and 43/24 are the absolute properties of the plaintiff. The defendant without following the existing rules of Municipality has revised the tax for the houses of the plaintiff which paved the way for instituting Original Suit No.224 of 1994 and the same has been decreed as prayed for. The defendant has not followed the direction given in Original Suit No.224 of 1994 and again, without following the relevant Rules has revised the house tax relating to door Nos.43-b, 48 and 43/24 and issued demand notices dated 23. 1999 and the same are illegal. Under the said circumstances the present Suit has been filed so as to declare that the demand notices issued by the defendant to the plaintiff are illegal and also for passing perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from collecting taxes on the basis of demand notices issued by the defendant.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is stated that the defendant has revised house taxes only by way of following the existing Rules. The plaintiff has not filed any Revision so as to seek remedy. The defendant has revised the house tax only on the basis of value of houses and there is no illegality in revising the tax in question and altogether the present Suit deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues and after pondering both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the Suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant as appellant has filed Appeal Suit No.119 of 2003 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the Suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.

6. At the time of admitting the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration:

"(i) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside since the same is opposed to well established documentary evidence on record such Exs.B1 to B7 and therefore perverse.

(ii) Whether the Appellate Judge can go beyond pleading, and beyond the documents and can give a finding that opportunity is given to the appellant/plaintiff in tax matter?

(iii) Whether the assessment order without following the principles laid down under the Act is valid?

(iv) Whether the Lower Appellate Courts finding of estoppels against statute is correct when admitted tax is paid under Exs.A8 to show the bona fide of the appellate?"

7. Before contemplating the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be more useful to look into the following admitted facts :

8. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing door Nos.43-b, 48 and 43/24. It is also equally an admitted fact that the houses of the plaintiff are well within the jurisdiction of the defendant with regard to imposition of tax. The main gravamen mentioned in the Plaint is that without giving sufficient opportunities and also without following existing Rules, the defendant has revised the taxes and issued demand notices dated 23. 1999.

9. The main defence taken on the si