Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is filed against the decision of the learned District Judge of Kozhikode confirming the decision of the Munsiff, by which a decree was granted to the plaintiff-respondent for damages to the extent of Rs. 20 against the petitioner-Corporation. 2. The suit arose in the following circumstances: The respondent-plaintiff in the suit is the owner of a property in Ward No. 14 within the Corporation of Calicut. On receipt of a complaint by the Corporation from a tenant of the respondent that one of the coconut trees standing in the property was in a dangerous condition and is likely to fall down, the Corporation cut down the tree. It was later sold and the proceeds adjusted towards the cost of cutting. The respondent then filed the suit from which this revision arises for damages alleging that the action of the Corporation was illegal and high-handed and that the tree had been cut without bona fides and at the instigation of an enemy of the respondent. 3. Both the Courts below found that the tree was in a dangerous condition and the Corporation was justified in cutting it. The Courts, however, held that the Corporation was not justified in selling the tree without giving a notice to the respondent and it was therefore liable for damages to the extent of Rs. 20, which was the value estimated for the tree. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the Courts below have obviously proceeded on the basis that under S.266 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Corporation had only power to cut the tree in case it was likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure and that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to sell the tree thereafter. According to the counsel, under S.284 of the Act the Corporation had power to sell the trees cut down by public auction and apply the proceeds towards the payment of expenses incurred, and to pay any surplus accruing from such sale to the owner or person entitled to it. It was also urged that under S.426 of the Act no suit was maintainable against any municipal authority in respect of any action taken in good faith. The last contention, I find, has not been taken either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court. It was also urged that under S.426 of the Act no suit was maintainable against any municipal authority in respect of any action taken in good faith. The last contention, I find, has not been taken either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court. The petitioner will not therefore be allowed to take up the plea for the first time in the civil revision petition. The other contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. S.284 (1) of the Act runs as follows: 'When the Commissioner takes down any building or part thereof or cuts down any tree or hedge or shrub or part thereof or removes any fruit in virtue of his powers under this Chapter or under S.406, the Commissioner may by public auction sell the materials Or things taken down or cut down or removed and shall, in the case of sale, apply the proceeds in or towards payment of the expenses incurred and pay any surplus accruing from such sale to the owner or other person entitled thereto on demand made within twelve months from the date of sale. If no such demand is made such surplus shall be forfeited to the corporation." The learned District Judge has observed that since the tree happened to be cut without notice, the Corporation should have given notice to the owner of the tree at least after the cutting and he should have been asked to pay the charges of cutting before the tree was sold by the Corporation. There is no warrant for such a proposition. Nothing in the Act directs the Corporation to give any notice to the owner of the tree before proceeding to sell it by public auction. The observation of the District Judge that the Corporation had no right to sell the tree cut without notice under S.266 of the Act is also legally not correct. It would appear that the provisions of S.284 were not brought to the notice of the learned District judge and it is because of this reason that he has come to the conclusion that a notice under S.266 is necessary for the disposal of the cut tree. It would appear that the provisions of S.284 were not brought to the notice of the learned District judge and it is because of this reason that he has come to the conclusion that a notice under S.266 is necessary for the disposal of the cut tree. The respondent-plaintiff did not take the contention that the cut tree was not sold in public auction and it is therefore not proper for the lower Court to observe that there are no records to show that the tree was sold by public auction. All official acts will be presumed to have been done properly and unless there is an allegation and proper proof that it has not been so done, the Court is not entitled to draw an adverse inference. In the circumstances, there is no justification for holding that the petitioner is liable for damages regarding the cut tree. The decisions of the Courts below are therefore reversed and the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are directed to bear their costs throughout.