Judgment :- The second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore viz., Arulmigu Rajagopalasamy Koil, Cuddalore represented by its Executive Officer against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A.S.No.10 of 1993 filed by the second defendant viz., C.A.Rahim in and by which the Sub Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court viz., the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore so far it relates to the second defendant C.A.Rahim. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.78 of 1991 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the enhancement of property tax from Rs.1121.40 to Rs.6202/= per half year for the property bearing door No.82-A Lawrence Road, Cuddalore, now newly numbered as 82-A-1 by paying court fee under section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act as the relief is incapable of valuation. The allegations in support of the suit are to the effect that enhancement of property tax has not been made according to law and in compliance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act or Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that without any basis, the property tax has been enhanced arbitrarily and without conducting any enquiry and passing final order of assessment, etc., and that the second defendant also has been added as a party for the reason that the new assessment is because of the additional constructions put up by him upon the said property with first floor and rooms therein for running a lodge without due sanction of the appropriate authority for which separate proceedings has already been taken against the second defendant. 3. The suit has been resisted by filing separate written statements by defendants 1 and 2 with the following material allegations. 3. The suit has been resisted by filing separate written statements by defendants 1 and 2 with the following material allegations. The enhancement of property tax has been made duly and legally and with basis inasmuch as there is separate construction of first floor with so many rooms capable of fetching huge rent and that the assessment of property tax in question in the suit is No.16942 and it is a new assessment in the name of the second defendant based upon the consent given by the plaintiff and that the second defendant is not a trespasser and in fact, the second defendant is a lessee under the plaintiff as per the registered lease deed dated 11.3.1985 and that further the second defendant approached the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Mayavaram for obtaining permission to renew and put up new construction and the Deputy Commissioner also recommended for compliance of the request of the second defendant to the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E by his letter dated 29.7.1986 and that in the meanwhile, the second defendant approached the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple and obtained no objection certificate from the Executive Officer on 21.8.1985 and 30.9.1985 and thereupon applied to the Municipality with the application for the purpose of getting licence and permission to put up new construction and that the Municipality also approved the application and granted permission to put up new construction as requested by the second defendant and that therefore, new construction has been put up by the second defendant with the knowledge and consent of the Executive Officer of the plaintiff and so, the second defendant is not a trespasser and thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Trial Court, viz., the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore examined the Executive Officer viz., Arunagiri as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and one Ganesan, the Bill Collector of the first defendant Municipality as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B14 and came to the conclusion that the enhancement of property tax in question is not based upon acceptable materials and in compliance of the Municipality Act or Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and thereby the enhancement of property tax is liable to be set aside and incidentally, further came to the conclusion that the second defendant is also a necessary party to the suit and decreed the suit as prayed for. 5. 5. Aggrieved against the finding of the District Munsif to the effect that the second defendant is a necessary party, the second defendant C.A.Rahim has filed A.S.No.10 of 1993 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore and after enquiry, the Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore came to the conclusion that inasmuch as there is no prayer against the second defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff and that the Municipality also has taken a stand in support of the second defendant C.A.Rahim and that the plaintiff temple has not chosen to file any appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, there is no necessity for the plaintiff to file a suit against the second defendant C.A.Rahim also in the light of nature of relief as such made in the suit (the prayer is only for declaration that enhancement of property tax is illegal and permanent injunction against the collection of such enhanced tax) and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit so far it relates to the second defendant C.A.Rahim. 6. Aggrieved against such judgment and decree of the Sub Court, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff temple by raising grounds that the Sub Court, Cuddalore should not have entertained the appeal filed by the second defendant and the Sub Court need not have given finding in support of the second defendant since there was no prayer against him in the suit and that the Sub Court need not have given findings on the points for determination based upon Exs.B1, B2, B4, B7, B11 and B12 because those documents were all photocopies and not proved and that since the Trial Court did not grant decree against the second defendant, the second defendant is not an aggrieved party to file appeal before the Sub Court and so on. 7. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of the judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsel appearing for either side in detail. The fact remains that the plaintiff temple filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction so far it relates to the enhancement of property tax for the property said to have been put up with door No.82-A-1 by the second defendant without the consent of the plaintiff and its concerned authorities. The fact remains that the plaintiff temple filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction so far it relates to the enhancement of property tax for the property said to have been put up with door No.82-A-1 by the second defendant without the consent of the plaintiff and its concerned authorities. The further fact remains that the said suit, after hot contest made by the Municipality, has been decreed and there was no relief prayed against the second defendant and no relief also against the second defendant has been given except the finding by the Trial Court that the second defendant is a necessary party. In this context, it is to be pointed out that there is allegation in the plaint that the second defendant is a trespasser of the property when in fact, he continues to be the tenant as per the registered lease deed or tenant by holding over. Further, it is to be pointed out that at one time, the plaintiff has chosen to make allegation in the plaint as if the second defendant is a trespasser and at another time, that he has not prayed for any relief against him in the suit. 8. In the same way, during trial before the District Munsif, the second defendant has not chosen to examine himself as a witness to substantiate his allegations or his stand that he is not a trespasser and he is a person who put up the new construction with the knowledge and consent of the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple. However, he has chosen to file the appeal before the Sub Court, Cuddalore against the finding of the Trial Court as if he is a necessary party to the suit on the basis that there is no prayer against him and no relief given against him. However, the Sub Court, Cuddalore has accepted the stand of the second defendant that he cannot be a necessary party inasmuch as there was no relief sought for against him in the suit by the plaintiff and the nature of relief as such sought for is only against the Municipality and he could be considered as unnecessary party. 9. However, the Sub Court, Cuddalore has accepted the stand of the second defendant that he cannot be a necessary party inasmuch as there was no relief sought for against him in the suit by the plaintiff and the nature of relief as such sought for is only against the Municipality and he could be considered as unnecessary party. 9. Strangely or unnecessarily, the Trial Court has been invited by both the parties to record the oral and documentary evidence touching the question whether the new construction was put up by the second defendant with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff temple and its authorities or without knowledge and consent of the authorities and so on. Strictly speaking, the plaintiff temple is expected to take appropriate and separate proceedings against the second defendant for his new construction put up by him without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff's authorities instead of resorting to letting evidence, marking Exhibits, examining and cross examining the witnesses on this aspect in this suit itself. It is more so, when the plaintiff has made a specific allegation in para 4 of the plaint that already proceedings are taken against the second defendant for his unauthorised and illegal construction and in the oral evidence PW1 says that Therefore, in all reasonableness, I am of the view that the second defendant is not at all a necessary party so far it relates to this suit and its nature of prayer and consequently, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cuddalore in deciding that the second defendant is not a necessary party to the suit cannot be construed as incorrect and illegal. Accordingly, this second appeal has no merits on facts or under law and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed however, with the observation that if the plaintiff intends to take separate action against the second defendant, it is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings and the observations and findings given by the Trial Court as well as the first appellate court touching this aspect would not be binding upon the parties while a decision were to be taken by the appropriate authority in such separate proceedings. No costs.