The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging property tax assessments if the assessments are not made in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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