JUDGMENT

Malik, CJ. - This second appeal has been filed by the defendant, the District Board of Farrukhabad. The plaintiffs filed a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from realising a tax which was assessed on the plaintiffs by the defendant as the circumstances and property tax for 1944.1945. The plaintiffs alleged that they did not do any business within the area under the management of the District Board and were therefore not liable to pay the tax.

2. The defence was that the plaintiffs resided and also carried on business within the limits of the District Board and the Board had assess, ed the plaintiffs on only such income as was made by the plaintiffs within those limits. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 131, District Boards Act.

3. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that except the plaintiff Bansidhar, who resided in Benares, all the other plaintiffs resided in Makrandnagar and their house in Kanauj was used for the purpose of their business. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs are brothers and are members of a joint Hindu family. The learned Munsif recorded a finding that the plaintiffs resided within the limits of the District Board and were, as such, liable to its jurisdiction for purposes of assessment. The learned Munsif held that the suit was barred by Rule 131, District Boards Act. As a result of the two findings mentioned above he dismissed the suit with costs.

4. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad. Before the learned District Judge it was again contended that the plaintiffs earned their income within the municipality and were, therefore, not liable to pay the circumstances and property tax imposed by the District Board. On behalf of the Board it was urged that so long as the plaintiffs were residents in the rural area they were liable to be assessed even though the income may have been earned within the municipal limits.

5. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that if the entire income of the plaintiffs was assessed to the circumstances and property tax by the Municipal Board of Kanauj, they were not liable to pay the same tax on the same income to the District Board. On the question whether the civil Court had any jurisdiction the learned Judge was of the opinion that no objection could be taken to a valuation of assessment and no liability of a person to be assessed or taxed could be questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than was provided for in the Act, but if the dispute was whether the plaintiffs resided within the limits of the District Board and were, therefore, subject to the application of the District Boards Act that dispute could be decided by a civil Court though the civil Court might not be able to entertain a suit about the amount of the taxable income.

6. Before the District Judge a new point was raised that under the Professions Tax Limitation Act (20 [xx] of 1941) no tax payable to any Municipality or District Board by way of tax on professions, trades, callings or employments could be valid beyond the sum of Rs. 50. The learned Judge held that the Act was applicable, the plaintiffs were not liable to pay more than Rs. 50 per annum to the District Board as circumstances and property tax and issued an injunction restraining the District Board from realising more than Rs. 50 per annum from the plaintiffs as circumstances and property tax.

7. The District Board has filed this appeal. The case came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who referred it for decision by a Pull Bench.

8. Two points have been raised before us by learned counsel, firstly that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred by Section 131, District Boards Act. The second point that has been argued is whether the tax imposed is governed by the provisions of the Professions Tax Limitation Act (20 [xx] of 1941). The points have been fully considered in the judgments of my learned b