S.S. Sundar, J.

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.409 of 1996 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff is a Trust and filed the suit for declaration that the assessment of property tax from the assessment year 01.10.1988 and the notice dated 08.01.1990 sent by the respondent / defendant in respect of the plaintiff's building bearing Door No.33/2-66F of Kottar Ilangadai Muslim Samuthaya Trust, are illegal.

3. The case of the appellant is that the appellant trust constructed a Thirumanamandapam in a property belonged to the trust and that the defendant municipality assigned door number. It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant municipality was levying tax for the building only at the rate of Rs.147/- per half year for the assessment year from 1986-1987. Though upto the second half year 1988-1989 the property tax was assessed at the rate of Rs.154.40, suddenly the respondent/defendant municipality levied tax at the rate of Rs.18,231.90 per half year from 01.10.1988 and sent a demand notice vide No.17840. The respondent/defendant also sent the notice dated 08.01.1990 to prosecute the appellant/plaintiff and demanded a sum of Rs.60,732/- for three half years of assessment. Since the respondent/defendant municipality did not issue any notice before the assessment and the notice of demand was bereft of particulars, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that the demand notice without assessment of property tax after due notice to the plaintiff trust, is illegal.

4. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant municipality denying all the averments in the plaint. According to the respondent/defendant, the suit is not maintainable as the appellant/plaintiff has sufficient opportunity to file a revision and the appeal against the assessment made by the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant contended that they have followed the procedure prescribed in the provisions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and that therefore, there is no illegality in the order of assessment or demand of property tax from the appellant/plaintiff. Since the appellant/plaintiff can only challenge the assessment before the Tax Appellate Committee, the respondent/defendant contended that the suit is not maintainable.

5. The trial Court after relying upon document Ex.A4 which is only a demand notice calling upon the appellant/plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.18,231.80, found that the contentions of the plaintiff trust relating to the income from the Kalyanamandapam is not acceptable and that there is no illegality in enhancing the tax from Rs.145.50 per half year to Rs.18,231.90. The trial Court also relied upon the working sheet filed by the respondent/defendant and justified that the property tax has been determined only on the basis of working sheet and that there is no scope for reduction of tax. The trial Court also found that the appellant/plaintiff ought to have filed a revision or appeal as contemplated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and ultimately dismissed the suit also on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for reduction of property tax is not maintainable without an appeal or revision as provided under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the appellant's/plaintiff's suit, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The lower Appellate Court also was of the opinion that the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that he is liable to pay only a lesser amount as property tax mainly on the ground that the facts and figures found in the working sheet produced by the Revenue Officer of the Municipality cannot be challenged. The appellant/plaintiff went further that the value adopted by the respondent/