Judgment : 1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.2004 made in A.S.No.15 of 2004 and on the file of Principal Sub-Court reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2003 made in O.S.No.205 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant but there is no representation on the side of respondent/plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the suit referred as appellant and the plaintiff in the suit referred as respondent in the appeal. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the distraint notice dated 12.12.2001 issued by the appellant/defendant is null and void and also seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant and its men from realising in any manner the annual property tax of Rs.21,384/- from the respondent/plaintiff by coercion and undue influence and for costs. 4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property was originally belonged to the father of the respondent namely late Beemachari and he was running catering business under the name and style of Sri Durga Stall. The respondent's father was died on 8.9.1997 and the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The business was closed in 1993 due to some misunderstanding in respect of the suit property between the respondent's father and the then tenant Sridhar. Again the business in the suit property was started only on 17.12.2001 and the property tax assessment number assigned to the suit property in the name of respondent's father late Beemachari as 23131. On 12.12.2001, the appellant Municipality has issued a distraint notice calling upon the respondent's father to pay a sum of Rs.21,384/- as property tax in respect of the suit property situated at D.No.125/58. According to the respondent, the appellant without causing proper notice and granting sufficient opportunity, attempts to attach the suit property including movables stored therein and issued the annual property tax mentioned in the distraint notice for the period 1999-2000(I and II) and 2000-2001 (I and II). As the above said notice was found altered, it is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant/Municipality to reconsider the assessment of tax and issued a fresh demand notice. Since the appellant Municipality taking steps to collect the tax, this suit has been filed by respondent. 5. As the above said notice was found altered, it is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant/Municipality to reconsider the assessment of tax and issued a fresh demand notice. Since the appellant Municipality taking steps to collect the tax, this suit has been filed by respondent. 5. Appellant/defendant filed a detailed written statement in which, it is denied the contention of the respondent that no business was done in the suit property from the year 1993 to 17.12.2001. According to the appellant, though the assessment No.23131 stands in the name of respondent's father late Beemachari, the respondent has not taken any steps to challenge the name as legal heirs of the deceased father Beemachari. Therefore, the suit itself is bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs of late Beemachari, since the suit property is never kept out of use and also even it is true it cannot be exempted from property tax. According to the appellant, before enhancing the property tax, all the formalities and procedures contemplated in Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act are complied with and as per the guidelines issued by the Government, the appellant Municipality enhanced the property tax. It is also averred in the written statement that since the assessee was not available, at the time of service of notice, it was served to the occupier of the premises. The respondent miserably failed to file either revision application to review the enhancement or preferred an appeal to challenging the enhancement as contemplated by the District Municipalities Act. Further, the respondent failed to question the validity and legality of the assessment, in time, the distraint notice dated 12.12.2001 cannot be challenged and hence the suit itself become infructuous and also not maintainable for want of pre-suit notice to the defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court on considering the above said pleadings framed four issues for consideration, which are as follows: 1. Whether the notice dated 12.12.2001 is null and void ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration as prayed for by him ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for ? 4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. Whether the notice dated 12.12.2001 is null and void ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration as prayed for by him ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for ? 4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. On the side of the respondent/plaintiff one witness has been examined as PW1 and marked three documents as Exs.A1 to A3 and on the side of the appellant/defendant, one witness has been examined and five documents were marked Exs.B1 to B5. The trial court has considered the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and finally dismissed the suit. 8. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.15/04, before Principal Sub Court, Chengalpet. The first appellate court has set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. Aggrieved over the reversing finding of the first appellate court, the appellant/defendant filed this second appeal. This Court has admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal: "Whether the civil court can be directly approached challenging a notice issued under the District Municipalities Act without exhausting the remedies available under the Act itself ? " 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant. The respondent has not appeared in person or through counsel inspite of sufficient notice and printed the name of the counsel in the cause list. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that while reversing the property tax during the relevant period, all the formalities contemplated under Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act had been followed by Appellant. Further, the respondent failed to exhausting all the remedies under the District Municipalities Act and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that the distraint notice Ex.A1 was issued in the name of Beemachari, who was died but this suit is filed by one of his legal heirs is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, only on the ground that Ex.A1 notice, the Door number has been wrongly mentioned. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, only on the ground that Ex.A1 notice, the Door number has been wrongly mentioned. The learned counsel further pointed out that the first appellate court has failed to consider the admission of the respondent in his evidence that he has filed revision petition against the special notice issued by defendant Municipality and it is pending. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that without challenging the assessment order, this suit is not maintainable it is challenging only distraint notice. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant relief, when the assessee has not exercised the option of filing the revision or appeal under the District Municipalities Act. 11. Admittedly, the assessment was in the name of the respondent's father. It is also not in dispute that at the time of assessment, the above said Beemachari was died (i.e.) on 08.09.1997. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that even prior to the above said Ex.A1 distraint notice dated 12.12.2001, the demand notice was issued but the respondent has not challenged the above said demand notice before the Civil Court but this suit is filed only challenging the above said Ex.A1 distraint notice and therefore, the suit is not maintainable on the above said ground alone. Learned counsel also submitted that as per Section 354(1) of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the respondent should have been approach the appropriate authority to challenge the above said distraint notice and then if any grievance the respondent shall prefer an appeal before Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. But the respondent has filed this suit before Civil Court and hence, this suit is not maintainable in view of the above said provisions. Learned counsel also relied on a decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 288 (Srikant Kashinath Jituri and others v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum), in which, para 7 to 9 reads as under: "7. The principles relating to jurisdiction of civil court in the case of acts and orders taken under special enactments is well-known. Learned counsel also relied on a decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 288 (Srikant Kashinath Jituri and others v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum), in which, para 7 to 9 reads as under: "7. The principles relating to jurisdiction of civil court in the case of acts and orders taken under special enactments is well-known. After considering several Indian and English cases, Hidayatullah, C.J., had stated the relevant principles in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ), in the following words: (at pp. 89-90 of AIR) "(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2)Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3)Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4)When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4)When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5)Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies. (6)Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7)An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply." 8. This Court further clarified that non-compliance with the provisions of the statute meant non-compliance with such fundamental provisions of the statute as would make the entire proceedings before the appropriate authority illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court also stressed the relevance and significance of the machinery provided by the relevant special statute for rectifying any errors and irregularities. 9. The principles enunciated in this decision have since been followed uniformly in various decisions, the last of which is in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161 , where again the entire case-law on the subject has been reviewed and principles reaffirmed." 12. On a careful reading of the above said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the above said relevant provisions under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it reveal that the suit filed by the respondent before the Civil Court is not maintainable. Further, notice issued by appellant also duly served as rightly held by trial court. Except the interest oral evidence of respondent, there is no other evidence to prove his contention. Therefore, the reversal finding of the first appellate court is perverse and liable to be set aside as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Further, notice issued by appellant also duly served as rightly held by trial court. Except the interest oral evidence of respondent, there is no other evidence to prove his contention. Therefore, the reversal finding of the first appellate court is perverse and liable to be set aside as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Further, in the instant case, the respondent has admitted at the time of evidence that he had approached appropriate authority under the Municipalities Act, challenging the demand notice issued by the appellant and it is pending. Admittedly, this suit is filed only challenging the subsequent distraint notice Ex.A1 and not challenged the demand notice already issued by the appellant. In the above said circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this suit is not maintainable before Civil Court, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the findings of the first appellate court reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, and decreed the suit as prayed for in the plaint is perverse and also invalid. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate court is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed and answered the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant and as against the respondent. 14. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.15 of 2004 are set aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2003 made in O.S.No.205 of 2001, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram are confirmed and there is no order as to costs.