HARRIES, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal from a decree of a learned Additional District Judge made in favour of the Calcutta Corporation and upholding a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge. The Corporation brought a suit claming arrears of consolidated rates. The figures do not appear to have been contested, but the defence was that these arrears wee in respect of an increase in the valuation which was not binding upon the defendant. ( 2 ) IT appears that originally the valuation of these premises were Rs. 50 per quarter which was increased to Rs. 51-14 per quarter and latter to Rs. 127-14 per quarter. The case for the defendant-appellant is that this last increase to Rs. 127-14 per quarter was made without any notice to her whatsoever. The trail court held that no notice had been given to the defendant-appellant, but the Civil Court could not interfere. In the view of the trial Court the defendant's only remedy when the valuation was increased was to make a representation to the Corporation, and on failure to obtain satisfaction, to appeal to the small Causes Court as provided by Section 139, 140 and 141, Calcutta Municipal Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional District judge on appeal took a different point. It appears that the defendant succeeded a mutwali who died in the year 1935, but it appears that her name was not mutated in the Municipal records until 1938, the deadly being due to a dispute as to the right of mutwaliship. The Additional District Judge seems to have found that this increase in the valuation to Rs. 177 odd took place in 1938 after the defendant had become mutwali and therefore the defendant could have had her name mutated before this increase in valuation was made. As she had not been mutated the learned Additional District Judge held that she was not entitled to any notice and on that ground dismissed the appeal from the trial Court. It appears that the facts upon which the learned Additional District Judge decided this case are erroneous. As she had not been mutated the learned Additional District Judge held that she was not entitled to any notice and on that ground dismissed the appeal from the trial Court. It appears that the facts upon which the learned Additional District Judge decided this case are erroneous. On an examination of the record it is clear that this increase in valuation was made in 1935 or 1936 probably, as the appellant's predecessor had died and the defendant could not have had her name mutated, because she had first to establish that she was the real mutwali, and this she did not succeed in doing till 1938. The facts upon which the learned Additional District judge has decided this case are incorrect, but it appears to me that his decision is correct upon other grounds. It is clear that where properties are valued for upon other grounds. It is clear that where properties are valued for the first time or the valuation is increased special notice must be served on the owner or occupier of the property after such valuation or increase in valuation is made. That is provided for in section 138, Calcutta Municipal act. ( 4 ) SECTION 137 of the Act provides for public notice when valuation under section 131 of lands and buildings in any ward is completed. It therefore follows that when a valuation is made for the first time or valuation is increased the owner or occupier may have two notices: (1) a general notice and (2) a special notice. Section 139 provides that if such owner or occupier having received such notice is dissatisfied, he may within fifteen days of the date of the special notice or the date of public notice, whichever is later, make representations to the Corporation. If he fails to obtain redress from the Corporation an appeal is given to the small Causes Court by section 141. In the present case the finding is that no special notice was given and there is no express finding whether any public notice was given, but that appears to be due to the fact that the point was never investigated. In all probability, the Corporation followed the usual course and published a public notice in the ordinary way. In the present case the finding is that no special notice was given and there is no express finding whether any public notice was given, but that appears to be due to the fact that the point was never investigated. In all probability, the Corporation followed the usual course and published a public notice in the ordinary way. ( 5 ) IT is contended, however, that as no special notice was given under section 138 the valuation was without jurisdiction and is ultra vires. It is to be observed that section 138 does not require notice to be given before a valuation can be made for the first time or before a valuation is increased. What it requires is that a notice should be given that a first valuation has been made or that a valuation has been increased. That being so, it seems tolerably clear that the giving of notice is not a condition precedent to the making of a first valuation or to increasing valuation. The valuation can be made and notice of course should be given to give the owner or occupier an opportunity to object. ( 6 ) WHAT is the effect of a failure to give this notice under section 138? It appears to me that it would be a good ground for objecting to the valuation and if no redress was obtained from the Corporation, it would be a good ground for appeal to the Small Causes Court; but it does not appear to me to go to the question of jurisdiction. Valuation can be made without notice and if notice is not given it does not, in my view, make the valuation ultra vires. It merely gives the owner or occupier a right to complain. ( 7 ) IF the valuation is not ultra vires, then it appears to me that the Civil Court could not go into the matter in this suit. The statute has provided for a way of dealing with these matters. There is first of all an objection to the Corporation and then an appeal to the small Causes Court, and subject to these rights a valuation or an increased valuation is final. The statute has provided for a way of dealing with these matters. There is first of all an objection to the Corporation and then an appeal to the small Causes Court, and subject to these rights a valuation or an increased valuation is final. It appears to me that the Corporation and the small Causes Court are given exclusive jurisdiction to deal with questions of valuation and a Civil Court could not go into the matter unless valuation or assessment was ultra vires, that is, a valuation or assessment not made under the Acct at all. In the present case it cannot be said that this valuation or increased valuation was not made under the Act. It clearly was made under section 131; and section 138 does not require notice to be given of an intended first valuation or an intended increase, but it only requires notice of he fact that a first valuation or an increased valuation has actually been made. That being so, it appears to me that the valuation was not ultra vires and the Civil Court could not go into the question in this suit. ( 8 ) A very similar point was considered by a Bench of this Court in the Corporation of Calcutta v. Nabin Chandra Dhar, ILR 35 Cal 683. When no objection to a revised assessment bad been filed by the rate-payer under section 139, Calcutta Municipal Act and such assessment had become final, there had been no determination of an objection within the meaning of section 140, in the absence of which no question of an appeal to the small Causes Court under section 141 arose. In such circumstances the small Causes Court could not deal with any application by the ratepayer either as an appeal or in any other manner. If it did so, the proceedings and the orders would be ultra vires. The Bench held that in such circumstances if the ratepayer had any grievance such as that notice under section 138 or section 504 was not properly served or that no opportunity was given to file objections or the like, the proper course was to apply to the Judge exercising ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court for an order in the nature of a mandamus, that is, for an order calling upon the Corporation to permit an objection to be made and to decide it. The Bench did not hold that the actual valuation and assessment were without jurisdiction. As the act of the Corporation was not ultra vires the increased valuation cannot now be questioned in the Civil Court. For these reasons I am satisfied that the decisions of the Courts below are right, and that being so this appeal fails and is dismissed. I would make no order as to costs in this Court. Mukherjee J. : I agree. Appeal fails.