JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff from a decree of a lower Appellate Court reversing a decree of a learned Munsif and dismissing the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff brought the suit which gave rise to these proceedings for a declaration that the assessment of Municipal Tax on the Plaintiff in respect of holdings Nos. 37 and 38 was ultra vires and certain other reliefs. The learned Munsif decreed the claim for a declaration but on appeal the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the assessment was valid and proper and dismissed the suit. The suit lands which are situate in Kalna Town were formerly treated as one holding (holding No. 33) by the Kalna Municipality and the annual tax was Rs. 67/4/-. In the year 1940 there was a new assessment by the Municipality and the holding was then sub-divided into two holdings, namely, Nos. 37 and 38. The taxes for those holdings were assessed at Rs. 66-14 and Rs. 16-8 respectively. According to the Plaintiff the Municipality had no right to divide this holding for taxation purposes; hence the suit. The defence was that the old holding could properly be treated as two holdings. The old holding which was surrounded by one set of boundaries consisted of a rice mill and certain land, which had in recent years been let to tenants for the cultivation of paddy. There was no suggestion that the rice mill was surrounded by one set of boundaries and the paddy land by another set. The contention of the Defendants was that as the land had been let the rice mill and the land could properly be treated as two different holdings and assessed separately. 2. What has to be assessed is a holding and a holding is denned in sec. 3 (21) of the Bengal Municipal Act. In that subsection holding means "land held under one title or agreement and surrounded by one set of boundaries". 3. As I have said, it seems to be conceded that both the rice mill and the land are surrounded by one set of boundaries and as far as the boundary test is concerned it would appear that the land is one holding as it had formerly been treated. 4. 3. As I have said, it seems to be conceded that both the rice mill and the land are surrounded by one set of boundaries and as far as the boundary test is concerned it would appear that the land is one holding as it had formerly been treated. 4. It was argued however by learned Advocate for the Municipality that as the land had been let the land could no longer be said to be held under one title or agreement. It is to be borne in mind that the assessee here was the owner and I cannot see how it could be held that he held the rice mill and the land under different titles or agreements. The fact that he had let the land in no way affected the title under which he held. It is not suggested that he held the rice mill under one title and the land under another. Had he done so he would never have been assessed in respect of this property as one holding. It does not appear to me that the letting of this land to tenants in any way affects the title under which the assessee holds. 5. It was urged by Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen on behalf of the Municipality that the Municipality had power to assess this land as two holdings under sec. 129 of the Bengal Municipal Act. That section reads: For the purpose, and subject to, clause (21) of sec. 3-- (a) if a question arises whether any land is included within one holding, the decision thereof shall rest with the Commissioners at a meeting; (b) the Commissioners at a meeting shall determine what class of ownership shall be accepted as the test for determining whether lands within a Municipality are held under one title or agreement Sec. 132 of the Act provides : Except as otherwise provided by this Act, any rate which is assessed on the annual value of a holding shall be payable by the owner of the holding. 6. It is true that sec. 129 allows the Commissioners to determine what class of ownership shall be accepted as the test for determining whether lands within any Municipality are held under one title or agreement. But there is nothing to suggest here that the Commissioners determined what class of ownership should be accepted for that purpose. 6. It is true that sec. 129 allows the Commissioners to determine what class of ownership shall be accepted as the test for determining whether lands within any Municipality are held under one title or agreement. But there is nothing to suggest here that the Commissioners determined what class of ownership should be accepted for that purpose. What the Commissioners did in this case was to treat the admitted owner of both portions as holding each portion under a different title which clearly he was not. In my judgment the view of the learned District Judge that the rice mill and the land were held under different titles or agreement cannot possibly be sustained. 7. It wag also held by the learned District Judge that this suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of sec. 535 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932. This point was not taken in the trial Court, but the teamed District Judge held that it could be taken before him as it was a pure point of law. Sec. 535 (2) provides that every suit or proceeding against Commissioners must be commenced within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. The learned District Judge held that the date of accrual of a cause of action for a declaration that an assessment was invalid was obviously the date of assessment. The suit was brought beyond six mouths of the date of assessment: Accordingly the learned Judge held that the suit was barred by time. The matter however has been the subject of judicial decision in this Court. In the case of Ambika Churn Mazumdar, Chairman v. Satish Chunder Sen 2 C.W.N. 689 (1898) it was held that a cause of action for a suit of this nature was a recurring one and the suit would be maintainable even if brought beyond six months of the date of assessment. It is to be observed that in those days the period was three months. At page 691 the learned Judges who composed the Bench observed : Then it was contended that the Plaintiff's action was barred, inasmuch as the assessment under sec. 112 was made more than three months from the date of the suit and that inasmuch as sec. It is to be observed that in those days the period was three months. At page 691 the learned Judges who composed the Bench observed : Then it was contended that the Plaintiff's action was barred, inasmuch as the assessment under sec. 112 was made more than three months from the date of the suit and that inasmuch as sec. 368 provides a period of 3 months within which the action should be brought the Plaintiff's suit should be held to be out of time. It appears to us, however, that the right to obtain a declaration such as the Plaintiffs seek in this case, namely, that it should be declared that they were not assessable under the Act was a recurring right and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the present action. 8. In that suit the Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a certain assessment was illegal. At first sight it would appear that this suit is barred by limitation. But as I am bound by this Bench decision I am compelled to hold that the suit was within time. 9. No other ground has been suggested upon which this judgment can be supported, and for the reasons I have given I hold that the judgment of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained. 10. In the result therefore I would allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the learned Munsif. The Appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the Courts below. Leave to appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent is refused.