( 1 ) THE Chickmagalur Town Municipal Council, by its President, filed six suits, viz. , O. S. 85, 87, 88, 97, 99 and 131 all of 1964, in the Court of the munsiff, Chickmagalur, for the, recovery of house tax. In O. S. Nos. 85, 87 and 88 the defendant was Kempamma. The defendant in O. S. 97 and 131 was B. C. Linganniah. The defendant in O. S. 99 was A. H. Ramaswamy. The defendants, appearing by the same Advocate, filed similar written statements, resisting the plaintiff's claim, mainly on the ground that the procedure contemplated under S. 73 (2) of the Town Municipalities act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) has not been followed and, as such the demand is illegal. Pending disposal of the suits, B. G. Linganniah died and Kempamma, was brought on record as his legal representative. ( 2 ) FOUR issues were framed in the suits. They are identical except for the amount claimed in the arrears of house tax under issue No. 1. Issues Nos. 2 and 3, in all the six suits, were as below- 2. Whether the suit is premature and not maintainable ? 3. Whether the plea set up by defendant is not tenable ? " ( 3 ) ONE witness (PW. 1) was examined for the plaintiff, and Exts. P1 to P26 were marked. The defendants did rot adduce any oral evidence. Exts. D1 and D1 (a) were marked for the defendants. All the six suits were clubbed together and tried and disposed of by a common judgment. At the end of paragraph 10, and in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of that judgment, it is stated as below :"bearing the above decisions in mind, if we examine the provisions of Sec. 73 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, it could only be said that it is incumbent on the Municipal authority to follow the procedure laid down under Ss. 70, 71 and 72 in adopting the assessment list of the previous year for the year immediately following. The non-observance of the procedure as laid down in the above said provisions would certainly amount to a material irregularity which would invalidate the action taken by the Municipal authority in pursuance of such act. Here, in this case, there is absolutely no material on record to say that there is any approved list subsequent to the year 1959. The non-observance of the procedure as laid down in the above said provisions would certainly amount to a material irregularity which would invalidate the action taken by the Municipal authority in pursuance of such act. Here, in this case, there is absolutely no material on record to say that there is any approved list subsequent to the year 1959. Therefore, my finding on the first issues in the suits are that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the taxes subsequent to the year 1959. 11. In view of what I have said above, my finding on the second issue is that the suits by the plaintiff in regard to the recovery of tax subsequent to the year 19591-60 is premature and not maintainable and in regard to the earlier period, the suits are maintainable. 12. Lastly, coming to the reliefs, the parties are entitled to, I am of the opinion, that the plaintiff succeeds in these suits as far as the recovery of taxes prior to the period 1959 and not subsequent to the period 1959. 13. In the result, the plaintiff succeeds partly in these suits and as referred to below : (1) OS 85/64: The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 66 together with proportionate costs. (2) OS 88/64: The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 71-08 together with proportionate costs. (3) OS 97/64: The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 36 together with proportionate costs. (4) OS 99/64: The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 9 together with proportionate costs. In view of my finding on the second issue, the plaintiff fails in OS 131 of 1964 and OS 87 of 1964. In the result, these suits in OS 87 of 1964 and OS 131 of 1964 are dismissed and each party are directed to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case. " ( 4 ) THE plaintiff went up in appeal in RA. Nos. 46 to 51 of 1969 to the civil Judge, Chickmagalur. The appeals were heard together and a common judgment was pronounced. Paragraph 9 of that judgment runs thus-" 9. So, the only point that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the preparation of an assessment list and approved by the Divisional Commissioner, is mandatory or whether it is only directory ? The appeals were heard together and a common judgment was pronounced. Paragraph 9 of that judgment runs thus-" 9. So, the only point that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the preparation of an assessment list and approved by the Divisional Commissioner, is mandatory or whether it is only directory ? my finding on the above point is that the preparation of an assessment list and approval by the divisional Commissioner is mandatory, and not directory. "the order portion of the judgment is at para 14-" 14. In the result, the appellant fails in all the appeals. Hence the appeals are dismissed. Tn the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, and direct that each party shall bear his or her own costs. " ( 5 ) THE plaintiff has now come up hero in these six regular second appeals. Sri G. V. Shantharau. Advocate, appears for the appellant in all the appeals. Sri K. Swamy Rao, Advocate, appears only for the respondant in RSA. 241 of 1971, which corresponds to OS. 99 of 1964, wherein the different (respondent) is A. H. . Ramaswamy. In the five second appeals, the respondent Kempamma has been served. She has remained absent. She in not represented by any Advocate. All the six second appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the point of law involved, it will be useful to set out the particulars, in tabular form, which are found in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. They are as follows : ( 7 ) BOTH the Courts below were of the firm view that sub-sec. (2) of s. 73 of the Act, because of the word 'shall', is mandatory and not directory, and that a new assessment list has to be completed at the commencement of every official year. The suits and the appeals were disposed of on that basis. Section 73 reads as below-" 73 (1) It shall not be necessary to prepare a new assessment list every year. Subject to the condition that every part of the assessment list shall be completely revised not less than once in every four years, the assessor may adopt the valuation and assessment contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may be deemed necessary, for the year immediately following. Subject to the condition that every part of the assessment list shall be completely revised not less than once in every four years, the assessor may adopt the valuation and assessment contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may be deemed necessary, for the year immediately following. (2) But the provisions of Ss. 70, 71 and 72 shall be applicable every year as if a new assessment list had been completed at the commencement of the official year. " ( 8 ) THE sections of the Act referred to in S. 73 (2) are 70, 71 and 72. S. 70 deals with the publication of notice of the assessment list prepared by the assessor. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 71 refers to the public notice of the time fixed for revising the assessment list. Sub-sec. (2) is regarding the revising authority. Sub-see. (3) deals with the objections how to be made. Sub-sec. (4) deals with the hearing of the objections. Sub-sec. (5) runs thus-" When all objections made under this section have been disposed of and all amendments required by sub-sec. (4) have been made in the assessment list, the said list shall be authenticated by the revising authority and sent to the Commissioner for approval. "sub-section (6) provides for the custody and inspection of the list. Sub-sec. (7) states how the list authenticated by the Divisional Commissioner becomes conclusive. ( 9 ) S. 72 (1) of the Act provides for amendment of the assessment list in the circumstances set out therein. The power, at any time, of altering the assessment list for the reasons specified is vested in the Municipal Council. Sub-sec. (2) refers to as how the objections are to be dealt with in the alteration made, and sub-sec. (3) with the effect of the amendment. ( 10 ) 'commissioner' appearing in sub-sees. (5) and (6) of S. 71 of the act, is defined in clause (3) of Section 3-" 'commissioner' shall mean the Divisional Commissioner of a division appointed under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of 1888 ). "'official year' is defined in clause (14) of S. 3 of the Act thus- " 'official year' shall mean the year commencing on the 1st day of april. "'official year' is defined in clause (14) of S. 3 of the Act thus- " 'official year' shall mean the year commencing on the 1st day of april. " ( 11 ) AS rightly represented by Sri Shantharaju, S. 73 (2) cannot be read divorced from the context (even if the word 'shall' is taken for granted as mandatory), that a harmonious blending has to be given to the whole of S. 73 and that both the Courts below fell into error in giving a narrow interpretation to S. 73 (2) beyond its ambit. Sri Shantharaju's ultimate contention is, and I agree with him fully, that as per S. 73 (1) of the act it shall not be necessary to prepare a new assessment list every year. He lays emphasis on the first sentence of sub-sec. (1) of S. 73 of the Act, viz. , 'it shall not be necessary to prepare a new assessment list every year,' that S. 70, 71 and 72 of the Act referred to in sub-sec. (2) of S. 73 come in only when revision, or amendment of the assessment list, approved by the Divisional Commissioner as per S. 71 (5) is sought for either by the tax-payer of the Municipal Council. No such instance is contemplated here as fairly represented by Sri C. N. R. Shastry, learned Advocate, appearing for Sri K. Swamy Rao, Advocate of the respondent A. H. Ramaswamy in RSA. No. 241 of 1971. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY the Divisional Commissioner approved the assessment list on 17-3-1959. It thus holds good for four years, viz. , from 1-4-1959 until 31-3-1963. The contention of the respondents (defendants) in the Courts below, which was erroneously upheld by them, that it holds good only for one year viz. , from 1-4-1959 to 31-3-1960, cannot certainly be upheld. ( 13 ) THE appellant has claimed from all the respondents house tax for the year 1963-64 also. Sri Shantharaju concedes that this cannot be done and that the appellant (plaintiff) is not entitled to claim house tax from the respondents (defendants) for the year 1963-64. Sri Shastry represents that the tax for the four years, viz. , 1-4-1959 to 31-3-1963, has to be calculated only as per the list approved by the Commissioner on 17-3-1959. That is correct. Sri Shastry represents that the tax for the four years, viz. , 1-4-1959 to 31-3-1963, has to be calculated only as per the list approved by the Commissioner on 17-3-1959. That is correct. ( 14 ) IN the result, all these six second appeals are allowed in part, and in the light of the observations made in the preceding para. The six suits are decreed accordingly. The decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. In the circumstances of these cases parties will bear their own costs throughout. --- *** --- .