JUDGMENT

D.P. Uniyal, J. - This is an appeal by Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge affirming the decree of the Munsif and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the notices dated 30-9-53 and 2-8-54 whereby the appellant sought to reassess the Municipal tax of House No. Section 15/6-A situate in Mohalla Gausabad in the town of Varanasi.

2. The house in question is a cinema building. In or about 1947-48 the said building was requisitioned by the State Government on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. When the premises were released by the State Government the plaintiff-respondent made considerable improvements in the building and fitted it with furniture, cinematograph machinery and other accessories at a cost of about Rs. 50,000/- and started using it as a cinema house.

3. The last quinquennial assessment was made by the appellant Board in 1951 and the building was assessed on the annual value of Rs. 720/-, but on appeal the assessment was reduced to Rs. 480/-. On 29-7-52 the plaintiff-respondent was permitted by the Municipal Board to construct four tin sheds and a cycle stand on the premises. After new additions to the building had been made the appellant assessed the building on 4-7-52 at the annual value of Rs. 1,560/-. Thereafter on 30-9-53 the appellant sent a notice to the respondent that the premises had been reassessed at the annual value of Rs. 16,080/- Subsequently by another notice dated 2-8-54 issued under the signature of the Secretary, the respondent was intimated that the annual valuation of the said building was Rs. 7,200/-. The case of the appellant Board was that the second notice dated 2-8-54 was never acted upon and had been issued under some misapprehension. The respondent filed an appeal against the two notices aforesaid but the same was dismissed on 3-11-54. On 10-12-54 the Board sent a notice of demand to the respondent in respect of house and water tax of the building on the basis of the revised assessment given in the notice dated 30-9-53. The respondent thereupon served a notice on the Board and filed the present suit on 4-12-57.

4. The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid notices on the ground that one of the conditions contained in Clauses (c) or (d) of sub-Sec. (1) of Section 147 existed in the case so as to give jurisdiction to the Board to revise the assessment list prepared in 1951. It was alleged that there was no proof that the previous assessment had been incorrectly made by reason of fraud misrepresentation or mistake, nor was there any evidence to show that the value of the property was very much increased by subsequent additions to and alterations in the building. The respondent alleged that the notices were invalid as they were not signed b) proper authorities and, in any case. could not be given retrospective effect. It was further alleged that the second notice dated 2-8-54 issued under the signatures of the Secretary of the Board must be deemed to have superseded the earlier notice dated 30-9-53 and, as such, the assessment of the premises on the annual valuation of Rs. 16,080/- way, wholly ultra vires, illegal and in effective.

5. The Board contested the suit and pleaded that the respondent had made extensive additions to and alterations in the premises and that the previous valuation and assessment of the building was wrong by reason of fraud committed by the respondent in suppressing material facts. It was alternatively pleaded that a mistake occurred in the previous assessment and the Board was entitled to rectify the mistake and enhance the assessment on being apprised of the true facts as to the valuation of the premises. It was further contended that the suit was barred under Sections 164 and 326(3) of the Municipalities Act.

6. The learned Civil Judge upheld the findings recorded by the Munsil that there was no reliable evidence to prove that the previous assessment of the premises mad