JUDGMENT :

One decade, two years and a few months is the age of the lis which has led to the captioned second appeal. A plaint was presented on 26.02.2009 on the file of 'Principal District Munsif's Court at Chidambaram' (hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of brevity) and this plaint was taken on file as O.S.No.27 of 2009 by the trial Court. In this plaint, a notice pertaining to property tax, namely a notice dated 29.01.2009 (Ex.A1) was called in question primarily on two grounds, i) it is time barred and ii) it has been issued in the name of a dead person. This property tax notice had been issued by the 'Chidambaram Municipality', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said Municipality' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. The 'appellant', who is the protagonist of captioned second appeal, shall be referred to as 'plaintiff' for the sake of convenience and clarity. After full contest, trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 decreed the suit, 'said Municipality' carried the matter in appeal by way of a regular first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) vide A.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of 'Subordinate Judge's Court, Chidambaram' (hereinafter 'first Appellate Court' for the sake of convenience) and the first Appellate Court, after full contest, allowed the first appeal in and by judgment / decree dated 23.07.2012.

3. The 'plaintiff', who shall also be referred to as 'Assessee' from hereon and henceforth, has carried the matter in appeal to this Court, the captioned appeal is obviously a second appeal and it is under Section 100 CPC.

4. Captioned second appeal is listed today under the cause list caption 'FINAL HEARING CASES'.

5. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for plaintiff/assessee and Mr.V.J.Arulraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Kirubaharan, learned Standing Counsel for said Municipality are before this Virtual Court. Both learned counsel consented for captioned second appeal being taken up for final disposal. Records from the District Judiciary have been received and the same have been placed before this Court. Before proceeding further, proceedings of this Court made on 15.04.2021 in C.M.P.No.7090 of 2021 in captioned second appeal is of relevance and the same reads as follows:

Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/appellant and Ms.B.Nirmala, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Kirubaharan, learned counsel on record for the sole respondent are before this virtual Court. This Court is informed that Mr.M.Kirubaharan is the standing counsel for Chidambaram Municipality, which is the sole respondent.

2. Captioned main Second Appeal was presented in this Court on 21.11.2012. Learned counsel for appellant submits that it went through twists and turns in terms of case file being misplaced, papers being reconstructed and ultimately it was taken on file as SA.No.1203 of 2019.

3. Captioned Second Appeal was admitted by this Court by a Hon'ble Predecessor Judge on 10.07.2020 on three questions proposed as substantial questions of law by the protagonist of the second appeal and the admission order reads as follows:

The second appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:-

i) Whether the Municipality can demand property tax for twelve years when the limited period to demand property tax is for only three years?

ii) Whether the limitation to collect the property tax for Municipalities is three years or twelve years?

iii) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in concluding that the demand notice issued in the name of the dead person is valid?

2. Mr.M.Kirubakaran appears for the respondent.'

4. In the aforementioned admission order, in question no.1, there is a typo and 'limited' has to be read as 'limitation'.

5. Captioned petition has now been moved stating that the respondent-Municipality is taking coercive steps to collect property tax pursuant to 29.01.2009 notice, which is the epicenter of the entire li