Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Ariyankkuppam Commune Panchayat Rep by its Commissioner - Petitioners
Versus
D. Maheswari - Respondents
S.A. No. 1248 of 2005
Decided On : 16-11-2018
For the Petitioners: D. Ravichander, AGP.
For the Respondent:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit when there is an express bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the court emphasized that a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable with reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Commune Panchayat Act - [Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act] - [Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Specific Relief Act, Rent Control Act] - The court discussed the provisions of the Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Specific Relief Act, and Rent Control Act. The court emphasized that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit due to an express bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The assessment of house-tax was to be done following the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable with reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare a demand notice for property tax null and void, contending that it was issued arbitrarily and without following the rule of law. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Commune Panchayat Act, and that alternate remedies were available for the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that it did not fall under the category of violation of principles of natural justice and the plaintiff had not established any cause of action. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment, emphasizing the need to assess the tax for the property following the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The Second Appeal Court set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, confirming the Trial Court's decision that the suit was not maintainable due to an express bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the maintainability of the suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Commune Panchayat Act, and the assessment of property tax following the provisions of the Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to an express bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that the assessment of house-tax should be done following the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable with reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and confirming the Trial Court's decision. The respondents were given the liberty to approach the competent authorities for redressing their grievances.
1. The present Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.S.No.175 of 2003.
2. The parties are referred as per the ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The suit was filed for declaration to declare that the demand notice dated 13.12.2002 under tax assessment No.6652 issued by the defendant regarding the suit schedule mentioned property is null and void. The plaintiff contends that she is the absolute owner of the residential house mentioned in the suit schedule. The plaintiff obtained permission from the Pondicherry Planning authority and constructed a building during the year 1996. The plaintiff completed the construction of the house only during the month of January 1996 and occupied the said house during the third week of January 1996. The plaintiff leased out the entire house for a monthly rent of Rs.600/-(Rupees Six Hundred only), ground floor of the house for Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred only) and First Floor of the house for Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred only).
4. The fact regarding the lease was known to the defendant at the time of conducting the enquiry. The defendant issued a demand notice dated 13.12.2002 under tax assessment No.6652 and the same was served to the plaintiff on 16.12.2002. The property tax amount of Rs.13,154/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand, One Hundred and Four only) was demanded by the defendants.
5. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendant issued the demand notice arbitrarily and without following the rule of law and the guidelines issued in respect of the assessment of the property tax. Thus, the demand notice is void of being issued.
6. It is further contended that the defendant had not followed the provisions of Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayat Act, while issuing the demand notice. Further, the demand notice was vague and not containing any particulars and details in respect of the assessment of property tax. The defendant has made the assessment for seven years in a stretch, which cannot be in force in the eye of law. The plaintiff occupied the house only during January 1996 and the defendant assessed the property tax for the house belonged to the plaintiff from the year 1995. Such an assessment was erroneous. The plaint was filed on these grounds with a relief to declare that the demand notice issued by the defendant is null and void.
7. The defendants in the suit filed a written statement, holding that the institution of the suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. There is an express bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the bar is provided under the provisions of the Commune Panchayat Act and as per the G.O./Order No. 4/AD(CS)/LAD/2000 dated 28.08.2000. The said Government Order was marked as Ex.B7 before the Trial Court. The written statements also states that in view of the express bar under the provisions of the Special Act namely, the Commune Panchayat Act, the suit is not maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further ground was raised before the Trial Court that alternate remedies available for the plaintiff under the provisions of the very Act and accordingly, the plaintiff has to approach the competent appellate authorities for the redressal of their grievances. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini is not maintainable.
8. The Trial Court formulated the issues in relation to the point of jurisdiction, cause of action and the issuance of demand notice by the defendant.
9. The Trial Court considered the documents marked and the depositions of the witnesses and arrived a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try suit as it does not fall under the category of violation of principles of natural justice and the plaintiff has not established any cause of action for the purpose of maintaining the suit.
10. In view of the fact that the
