Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is a third party in the suit O.S. No. 53 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsifs Court at Karur. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1991 made in I.A. No. 1077 of 1990 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987 directing the petitioner to produce the assessment records under S. 52.(4) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents 1 and 2 filed the said suit O.S. No. 53 of 1987 again 1st respondents 3 to 5 claiming the following reliefs:— (a) Declaring rights, title and interests of the plaintiffs to the suit A and B Schedule properties and consequent thereon granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants in any manner from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties (aa) if the defendants are found to be in possession of any portion of the suit properties by this Honble Court that the defendants to surrender peaceful possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. (b) award costs of the above suit: and (c) grant such other reliefs as the Honble Court deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the above suit and render justice.” The case of the respondents 1 and 2 in the above suit is that there was a family partition between respondents 1 and 3 who are brothers and respondents 1 and 2 based their case on the said family partition. To substantiate the case of respondents 1 and 2 that there was a family partition, they took out summons to the petitioner to produce before the Court below the assessment records relating to the assessment years 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-1991. The petitioner did not respond to the summons issued by the Court below which resulted in the respondents 1 and 2 filing of the Petition I.A. No. 1077 of 1990 seeking the arrest of the petitioner for disobedience of the order of the Court below to produce the assessment records. The petitioner did not respond to the summons issued by the Court below which resulted in the respondents 1 and 2 filing of the Petition I.A. No. 1077 of 1990 seeking the arrest of the petitioner for disobedience of the order of the Court below to produce the assessment records. The petitioner herein resisted the application I.A. No. 1077 of 1990 contending that as per S. 52 of the Act all the records pertaining the agricultural income-tax assessment cannot be directed to be produced into court, that all the records of the assessment files shall be treated as confidential and that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, the Court below cannot require the petitioner to produce before it the documents or records relating to the assessment. The specific plea of the petitioner in the counter is that in respect of the properties held by the parties for the period in question viz, faslis 1397 to 1390 assessments were made under S. 65-A of the Act and hot under S. 29 of the Act, and therefore, the provision contained in Sub Section (4) of S. 52 of the Act will not apply to the case of the respondents. However, the Court below by the order dated 7.1.1991 directed the petitioner to produce the documents of assessments holding that the immunity under S. 52(1) was not available to the petitioner as the assessments were made under S. 29 of the Act. 2. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) relying on the decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 5280 of 1983 contended that the documents filed by the assessee cannot be directed to be produced into court except under the circumstances mentioned in Sub Section (4) of S. 52 of the Act and that there is nothing in this case to show that the assessment was made under S. 29 of the Act attracting the provision contained in Sub Section (4) of S. 52 of the Act. There is substance in the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. In State of Tamil Nadu rep. There is substance in the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. In State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Agricultural Income Tex Officer, Tiruchy v. S.N. Thirugnanam and another (C.R.P. No. 5280 of 1983), this court, while interpreting the scope of S. 52 of the Agricultural Income-Tex Act, after referring to the decisions of Supreme Court in Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gulupad Ghosh ( AIR 1962 SC 1119 ) and Commissioner of Income Tex v. Laxmichand Narandas (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1121), held as follows:— “The views expressed in the above decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents that the privilege contemplated is that of the assessee the assessee or his legal representatives can waive the same and that the documents relating to the assessment are public documents to which the assessee or his legal representatives are entitled to copies, had been negative by the Supreme Court in the two subsequent decisions referred to above. The views expressed by the Supreme Court in Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh ( AIR 1962 SC 1119 ) and in Commissioner of Income Tex v. Laxmichand Narayandas ( AIR 1962 SC 1121 ), though rendered under S. 54 of the Indian Income Tex Act, are applicant to the facts of this case since S. 52 of the Agricultural Income Tex Act is similar to S. 54 of the Indian Income Tex Act. In view of the two subsequent Supreme Court mentioned above the principle expressed in decision reported in Kadepkutty v. Agricultural I.T. Officer (AIR 1962 Kerala 32) the Full Bench decision reported in Katikinet Venkata Gopala Narasisimha Rama Rao v. Chitulri Venkataramayya (1940 ILR Madras 969 = 52 L.W. 159, F.B.) and the reported in Muniyammai v. The Third Additional Income Tax Officer (ILR 1960 Madras 612= (1960)2 MLJ 96 =73 L.W. 291) cannot hold the field. Therefore the documents pertaining to Agricultural Income Tax Assessment cannot be directed to be produced into court.” The ratio of the decision of this Court C.R.P. No. 5280 of 1983 is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore the documents pertaining to Agricultural Income Tax Assessment cannot be directed to be produced into court.” The ratio of the decision of this Court C.R.P. No. 5280 of 1983 is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt S. 52(4) of the Act says that nothing in S. 52 of the Act shall apply to the production by a public servant before a court of any document, declaration or affidavit filed or the record of any statement or deposition made in a proceeding under S. 29 of the Act or to the giving of evidence by a public servant in respect thereof, But, there is nothing in this case to show that the proceedings under the Act were initiated under S. 29 of the Act and the assessment order was passed under that Section. Respondents 1 and 2 have not produced any material to show that the assessment in their case was made under S. 29 of the Act. They have neither produced the copy of the application filed under S. 29 of the Act nor the assessment orders for the period in question. In these circumstances, the Court below is not justified in taking the view that S. 52(4) of the Act will apply to the facts of the present case, and therefore, the petitioner is bound to produce the assessment orders before the Court. The reasons given by the Court below for coming to the conclusion that S. 29 of the Act will apply to the facts of the case are clearly erroneous. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner that the assessments were made under S. 65-A of the Act has to be accepted in which case, the records pertaining to agricultural income tax assessment cannot be directed to be produced into court in view of S. 52 of the Act. For all the reasons stated above, it has to he held that the order of the Court below directing the petitioner to produce the assessment records before it is clearly erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.