JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - Three assessments, exhibits P1, P2 and P3 for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 have been completed on the petitioner as the son legal heir of deceased P. M. Jainee, who was a mutton dealer in Edappally. This Jainee died on December 17, 1987 leaving behind him two sons, the petitioner and his brother, one P. S. Azeez, and also his wife M. K. Beevi, all of whom were and are living together at Pulikkaparambil, Edappally. The petitioner filed returns for these years and also responded to the notice issued by the Revenue for production of accounts. He did not raise any demur to the proceedings being taken against him though his brother Azeez and mother Beevi were also in existence. Proceedings were continued as if he was representing the estate of the deceased and the assessments as stared earlier were completed on November 7, 1991 demanding various amounts by way of tax due from P. M. Jainee. The petitioner did not challenge these assessments in any appeal, but came forward with this writ petition when proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated and notices exhibits P4, P5 and P6 issued to him for payment of the amounts due under exhibits P1, P2 and P3. 2. A contention has been raised before me that the assessments made without notice to the other legal heirs of deceased Jainee are invalid in law. I do not think I should entertain such a plea from the petitioner and according to me it appears very weak in his hands. It was the petitioner who filed the returns for these years. He responded to the notices issued by the department, produced the accounts, participated in the assessment proceedings and then received the assessments. He did not at any point of time raised the plea that notice should be issued to his mother and brother also. In fact his mother and brother were also residing in the same house in Pulikkaparambil and it cannot be said that they were unaware of the proceedings going on for assessment. Evidently the petitioner was left to represent the estate. In fact his mother and brother were also residing in the same house in Pulikkaparambil and it cannot be said that they were unaware of the proceedings going on for assessment. Evidently the petitioner was left to represent the estate. It is nowhere stated that the assessments are in any manner illegal or unsustainable otherwise, Having participated in the proceedings and acquiesced in them this Court exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 will not entertain any plea that the assessments are invalid for the reason stated above. Such a plea cannot be entertained at the hands of the petitioner and I decline to set aside the orders exhibits P1, P2 and P3 on this ground. 3. The next plea raised by the petitioner is that he being only one of the heirs of deceased Jainee and he being only a legal representative, he can be made liable only up to the extent of the assets devolving on him on Jainee's death. The Government Pleader on the other hand, submits that Jainee had left behind 40 cents of land in Trikkakara with the petitioner having a good share in it. He, therefore, submits that the value of the extent of the assets devolving on the petitioner is much more than the amount of tax demanded as per exhibits P1, P2 and P3. 4. I am not going into the merits of the controversy because the position in law is well-established that a legal heir of the deceased person is liable for the dues of the deceased only to the extent of the assets of the deceased devolving on him. It is sufficient to declare that the petitioner's liability for the dues under exhibits P1, P2 and P3 will be to the extent of the assets of the deceased that have devolved on him. I am not going into the question as to what is the share of the petitioner in the assets or as to whether those assets are sufficient to meet the liabilities under exhibits P1, P2 and P3. Those are matters which can be agitated before the revenue recovery authorities and are not for this Court to decide. I, therefore, dismiss the original petition with a declaration that the petitioner's liability for the amounts due under exhibits P1, P2 and P3 will be to the extent of the assets of deceased Jainee that have devolved on him. Those are matters which can be agitated before the revenue recovery authorities and are not for this Court to decide. I, therefore, dismiss the original petition with a declaration that the petitioner's liability for the amounts due under exhibits P1, P2 and P3 will be to the extent of the assets of deceased Jainee that have devolved on him. Petition dismissed.