Judgment.- The common point that arises for determination in these revision petitions is whether the re-assessments levied on the respective respondents are arbitrary, and if not, whether the Court below was competent to go into the question. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The respective respondents are owners of tiled houses in Kurukkuparaiyur, a hamlet attached to Arasiramani Panchayat. Each of them was assessed to house tax. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 2206 of 1959 at Rs. 18-25nP. for each half year from 1st October, 1956, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2207 of 1959 at Rs. 13-12NP. and the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2208 of 1959 at Rs. 18-75 and Rs. 9-50 nP. in respect of his two houses for the same period. They defaulted in the payment of tax for three half years form 1st October, 1956 to 31st March, 1958. Distraint proceedings taken against them proved ineffective, so that the Panchayat instituted the three small cause suits out of which these revision petitions arise against the respective respondents for recovery of the arrears due. Each of the respondents resisted the claim. They pleaded that the assessment in each case was arbitrary and that in levying the assessments in question the mandatory provisions of the Madras Village Panchayat Act (X of 1950) and the Rules framed thereunder had not been adhered to by the Panchayat Board. In view of the common plea raised by respondents, the learned District Munsif tried all the suits together and disposed them by a common judgment. He found that the assessments in all these cases had not been made in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to question their propriety and quantum in a civil Court. Accordingly, he decreed the suits for admitted amounts as subsequently revised and reduced at the instance of the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards. It is contended for the petitioner that by reason of the bar under section 111 of the Act, the learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction to go into the propriety of the rate of the taxes and that if the respondents were dissatisfied with the assessments, they should have resorted to machinery provided by the Act itself for relief. It is contended for the petitioner that by reason of the bar under section 111 of the Act, the learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction to go into the propriety of the rate of the taxes and that if the respondents were dissatisfied with the assessments, they should have resorted to machinery provided by the Act itself for relief. Under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it is open to an assessee, if he is aggrieved with the quantum of tax levied on him, to pay the tax and appeal to the Panchayat for reduction of the tax. That has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, when the Panchayat Board sought to recover the tax amount defaulted by the respondents they urged in defence that the taxes levied on them was arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The question is whether in view of section 111 of the Act, they are entitled to thus resist the claim. Section 111 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayat Act, X of 1950, is to the following effect: “No assessment or demand made, and no charge imposed, under the authority of this Act shall be impeached or affected by reason of any clerical error or by reason of any mistake (a) in respect of the name, residence, place of business or occupation of any person, or (A) in the description of any property or thing, or (c) in respect of the amount assessed, demanded or charged, provided that the provisions of this Act have in substance and effect been complied with. And no proceedings under this Act shall, merely for defect in form, be quashed or set aside by any Court of Justice.” Rule 22 further provides that the assessment or demand of any tax when no appeal is made, as provided under the Act, or when an appeal is made, an adjudication of the Panchayat thereon shall be final. So that in order to give jurisdiction to a Civil Court to go into matters prohibited by section 111 of the Act, it should be shown that in levying the assessment in question the provisions of the Act have not, in substance, or effect been complied with. Whether this has been done or not is a question of fact. So that in order to give jurisdiction to a Civil Court to go into matters prohibited by section 111 of the Act, it should be shown that in levying the assessment in question the provisions of the Act have not, in substance, or effect been complied with. Whether this has been done or not is a question of fact. In paragraph 8 of his judgment the learned District Munsif has observed: “As regards the original assessment for the suit period it is in the admissions of P.W.1, the President of the plaintiff Panchayat, that the rate was fixed by him as it suggested to him to be reasonable and without any regard to the capital value or other circumstances, which should have been taken into consideration while assessing house tax under the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.” I have been taken through the evidence, and I am constrained to state that the above observations of the learned District Munsif are not warranted by the evidence on record. On the other hand, what has been stated by the President of the Panchayat as P.W.1 is that they prepared the assessment register after inspection of the houses and ascertaining their capital value. Nowhere in the evidence is there support for the observation that the assessment was made without any regard to the capital value and the other circumstances. Therefore, if, on the evidence, the finding of the learned District Munsif that the assessments in these cases had been made without reference to the capital value or other circumstances is not supportable, and I am satisfied it is not possible to support it, it should follow that the assessments in all these cases, had been made in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act, in other -words with due regard to one of the bases laid down in section 64 of the Act. The fact that, subsequently, on applications made to the Inspector of Local Boards, he chose to reduce the taxes cannot alter the position or confer jurisdiction on the learned District Munsif to go into the question of quantum of rent. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the decrees in the respective suits for a smaller sum than claimed by the petitioner Panchayat are not supportable and that each of the suits should have been decreed for the full amount claimed. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the decrees in the respective suits for a smaller sum than claimed by the petitioner Panchayat are not supportable and that each of the suits should have been decreed for the full amount claimed. All the three revision petitions are therefore allowed and the decree in each of these cases is modified by substituting the amount claimed by the petitioner in the place of the amount decreed by the learned District Munsif. As the respondents have not chosen to oppose these petitions, I make no order as to costs. I am however thankful to Mr. K. S. Mahadevan for having argued the respondents’ case as amicus curiae for the respondents. R.M. ----- Petitions allowed.