J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.394 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property belonged to them and that they had put up a cinema theatre after getting proper approvals. The construction of the theatre was completed in the year 2000. The theatre is situated within the territorial limits of Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation. The Corporation issued Ex.A.1 notice dated 08.05.2002 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay half yearly tax quantified at Rs.1,04,365/- with effect from 01.10.1998. The first plaintiff submitted a letter dated 20.05.2002 setting forth his objections (Ex.A.2). Though the Commissioner of Tirunelveli Corporation received the said notice, no order was passed on the said objections. Instead the second defendant issued Ex.A.4 notice dated 04.06.2002 proposing to take consequential action. Several representations and objections submitted by the plaintiffs did not elicit any response. Left with no other option, the plaintiffs had to file the aforesaid suit for declaration that the action taken by the respondent for collecting property tax in respect of the suit building is illegal and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant authorities from collecting the same.

3. The Corporation filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, the theatre manager was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 were marked. On the side of the defendants, a municipal official was examined as D.W.1. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 were marked. After a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 07.03.2003 decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Corporation filed A.S.No.205 of 2003 before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. By judgment and decree dated 13.08.2004, the first appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

4. On 23.03.2006, the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law?

“ i) Whether the process of assessment is in accordance with law? “

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellants and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial Court.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for Tirunelveli Corporation submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference. 7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record.

8. The suit was filed for declaration that the property tax assessment made by the defendant Corporation is illegal. The first appellate Court held that the suit is not maintainable. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to go into the validity of the assessment of the property tax is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in (2010) 2 CTC 51 (K.A.Arokkiam V. The Dindigul Municipality) after referring to a catena of earlier decisions held that if the assessment in question has been made in consonance with the provisions of the relevant statute or in substantial compliance of the same, the assessment in question cannot be challenged before the civil forum. But at the same time, if the assessment in question is totally erroneous and has not been made in substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute, the civil Court would certainly have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit questioning the very assessment. In the case on hand, the suit building is a newly constructed one which was being assessed for the first time by the