JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2008 in A.S.No.174 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2001 in O.S.No.803 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. 3. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.803 of 200 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai, for a prayer to declare the property tax demand notices dated 07.10.1999 and 15.03.2000 and attachment notice, dated Nil have to be declared as null and void and for a permanent injunction from taking steps to collect the property tax from the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.23,992/- already paid by the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Against which, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.174 of 2001 before the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and the appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Against which, the appellant filed this Second Appeal. 4. The brief substance of the plaintiff is as follows: The property belongs to the plaintiff Society. The nature of the Society is to promote the literature and science and diffusions of useful knowledge. The plaintiff Society constructed several buildings viz., Schools, hostels for the students, who are studying there. There is an orphanage hostel for the poor students. They were also imparting education to blind students from sixth standard up to twelfth standard. The Educational Institution run by the plaintiff Society was recognised by the State Government in the year 1908 itself. It is a Government Aided School. 5. The suit property is one among the several buildings constructed in that campus. Apart from these buildings, some new buildings are constructed facing the road and those buildings were rented out to shops and a bank and for those buildings, the plaintiff is paying property tax regularly. The plaintiff used to pay property tax for the School buildings till 1993. Subsequently, the State of Tamil Nadu exempted all the buildings used for Educational purposes, including hostels from payment of property tax from 01.04.1994. The plaintiff used to pay property tax for the School buildings till 1993. Subsequently, the State of Tamil Nadu exempted all the buildings used for Educational purposes, including hostels from payment of property tax from 01.04.1994. Under these circumstances, the defendant issued a demand notice, dated 07.10.1999 regarding Door No.127/C, demanding to pay property tax to the tune of Rs.23,992/- from 01.10.1998 onwards. The classification of the building stated in the demand notice is commercial. The building in Door No.127/C was used as classrooms for 6th to 12th students. The plaintiff gave explanation through letter dated 02.11.1999 and a reply dated 10.11.1999. The defendant issued another notice on 15.02.2000, demanding additional property tax of 2%. Plaintiff objected the same in its letter dated 02.06.2000, subsequently, the defendant withheld the demand for payment of additional tax of 2%. 6. However, the defendant issued attachment notice and on 13.07.2000, the officials of the defendant threatened the plaintiff to cut down the drinking water supply and the drainage facilities and hence, to get over the situation, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.23,992/- by way of cheque dated 30.07.2000 towards part payment with protest. Hence, the demand notice and the attachment notice are to be declared as null and void and the defendant should be directed to return the amount with interest and the defendant has to be restrained from collecting tax from the plaintiff. 7. The brief substance of the written statement is as follows: The suit property is not utilised for School purpose and the School children were not studying in the building. The building was used for running a private computer centre and other special subject for the outsiders. Though the property was situated within the School campus, it was not used for the school purpose. The plaintiff is not eligible to get exemption from payment of property tax, when the building is not utilized for Educational purpose. The official of the defendant measured the suit property and they noticed personally that the computer centre was functioning there. The plaintiff was collecting heavy fee from the computer centre. The defendant assessed the suit property under the category of commercial institution. All computer centres in Madurai were assessed to property tax. The plaintiff is using the building for computer centre and for taking special subjects for the outsiders and the prospectus issued by the plaintiff's would clearly reveals the same. The defendant assessed the suit property under the category of commercial institution. All computer centres in Madurai were assessed to property tax. The plaintiff is using the building for computer centre and for taking special subjects for the outsiders and the prospectus issued by the plaintiff's would clearly reveals the same. The civil Court was not a proper forum under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. The Taxation Appellate Tribunal was also available for those, who were not satisfied with the assessment order. They have to approach only the presiding office of the Tribunal headed by a Senior Civil Judge. This civil Court has no jurisdiction to conduct the case. 8. The trial Court after going through that pleadings has framed the following issues: (i) whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration? (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction? (iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? (iv) what are the reliefs available? 9. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Against which the appellant filed the First Appeal before the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai. 10. The grounds of appeal in the first Appeal are as follows: The trial Court failed to consider the documents in the proper perspective and the trial Court failed to consider the structure of the building in Door No.127/C. The trial Court failed to consider the fact that computer education also lies within the heading of Education and the building used as a computer centre is to be exempted from property tax and prayed the suit to be decreed. 11. On the basis of the grounds of appeal the first Appellate Court framed the following issues: (i) whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is to be set aside? (ii) whether the appeal is to be allowed? 12. After hearing both side, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Against which, the appellant filed this Second Appeal. 13. In the ground of this Second Appeal, it is stated that the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are against law, evidence and probabilities of the case. (ii) whether the appeal is to be allowed? 12. After hearing both side, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Against which, the appellant filed this Second Appeal. 13. In the ground of this Second Appeal, it is stated that the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are against law, evidence and probabilities of the case. The first Appellate Court failed to consider that interlocutory application filed Order 41 Rule 27 was pending and material documents are omitted to be marked in the trial Court. When there was a violation of Rule and Law, the civil Court was a competent Court to decide the issue. The Courts below omitted to note that facts which were not specifically pleaded could not be analysed and discussed. The trial Court failed to consider that intentions of depositions of the witnesses properly and not interpreted them accordingly. Both the Courts below have to pass decree and judgment in favour the appellant by decreeing the suit as prayed for as the matter involved is a settled law. 14. On the grounds of the Second appeal this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law: (i) whether Courts below are correct in holding that the contemplated provisions of Section 122(c) of Madurai Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 are not applicable to the plaintiff institution? 15. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that Section 122 (c) of the said Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 is applicable to the plaintiff institution. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that Section 122 (c) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 exempted the plaintiff institution from paying property tax. It is stated that the plaintiff was paying property tax till 1993 and from 01.04.1994 onwards, the appellant was exempted from payment of property tax for the Educational Institutions run by them. It is stated that due to the threatening of the officials of the respondent, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.23,992/- and prayed that amount to be refunded with interest. 16. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the tax amount already paid. A judgment of this Court published in 1992 L.W. 291 in a case of S.Manickam Vs. 16. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the tax amount already paid. A judgment of this Court published in 1992 L.W. 291 in a case of S.Manickam Vs. Madurai Corporation is cited, wherein it is decided that “in a suit against the Municipal Corporation for declaration that revision and increase of annual value of suit premises is void refund ought to have been granted”. 17. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that that Municipality has not followed the principles enunciated in law for fixing the property tax and the notices were to be declared as null and void. A judgment of this Court published in 2007 (2) MLJ 643 in a case of Executive Officer, Kolappalur Town Panchayat Vs. Maxwell Apparel Industries Ltd., rep. by its General Manager, is cited. 18. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that exemption from property tax is available for building used for educational purposes including hostels also. A judgment delivered by this Court published in 2008 Writ L.R. 286 in the case of “Kanyakumari Medical Mission, C.S.I. Hospital Vs. the Municipal Commissioner, Kuzhithurai & another”, is cited. 19. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that Section 122 (c) of the Madurai Municipalities Act is not applicable to the suit property. It is stated that though the suit property was within the School campus Door No.127/C was used only for running a computer centre, for the public. It is stated that Ex.B1 advertisement given by the plaintiff for running the computer centre would prove that Door No.127/C was used for commercial purpose. The demand notice, Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the defendant and it is stated that Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 are valid and declaring them as null and void is unnecessary. 20. It is stated that Ex.B1 advertisement given by the plaintiff for running the computer centre would prove that Door No.127/C was used for commercial purpose. The demand notice, Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the defendant and it is stated that Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 are valid and declaring them as null and void is unnecessary. 20. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)No.12240 of 2016 etc., has delivered a Judgment in favour of the Corporation, wherein it is stated that “the specific stand taken by the respondent-Corporation for issuing demand notice claiming property tax from the petitioners – schools is that the exemption in respect of the educational buildings is not automatic rather the same is subject to two rider conditions, namely (I) such institutions ought to be run purely on philanthropic lines and (ii) they must be approved by the Corporation Council. In the absence of compliance of these two conditions, the petitioners – schools could not claim any exemption under Section 122(c) of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 [within the limits of Madurai Corporation] or Section 123 (c) of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 [within the limits of Tirunelveli Corporation]”. “The clear position that the buildings used for educational purpose including hostels attached thereto and places used for the charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute or animals, and orphanages, homes and schools for the deaf and dumb, asylum for the aged and fallen women and such similar institutions run purely on philanthropic lines as are approved by the Council. It means, any building that is used for educational purposes and also places used for charitable purposes, could be exempted from payment of property tax, however, such building should be approved by the Council of the Corporation that they are being used exclusively for the educational purposes/charitable purposes as mandated under Section 122 (c) of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act”. 21. It is admitted that the plaintiff is a Society and it is running a School. The Society Registration Certificate was marked as Ex.A1, Sketch of the buildings was marked as Ex.A2, the approved plan was marked as Ex.A4, the Government Order for exemption from property tax was marked as Ex.A6. 22. 21. It is admitted that the plaintiff is a Society and it is running a School. The Society Registration Certificate was marked as Ex.A1, Sketch of the buildings was marked as Ex.A2, the approved plan was marked as Ex.A4, the Government Order for exemption from property tax was marked as Ex.A6. 22. From the records, it is seen that Ex.B1 was issued as an Advertisement for the public to join computer courses and other courses in the suit property. Ex.B1 contains the fees structure for various courses. P.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff was running a computer center. It is seen that the Government has exempted buildings used purely for educational purpose from payment of property tax. But the suit property is not used for any philanthropic reason and Door No.127/C is not used by the students of that School. It is seen that the plaintiff did not approach the Commissioner, Municipality questioning the demand notice. The plaintiff failed to approach the tax Tribunal also. The plaintiff is claiming Rs.23,992/- with interest and he has framed the prayer in such a way as if it is a prayer for mandatory injunction to refund an amount to avoid payment of Court fee. 23. It is seen that 122 (c) of the Act was applicable to the Educational Institutions and the Government has already passed an order vide Ex.A6. But, this particular Door No.127/C is not used by the students of the School, it is used by the public, which is, proved by evidence of P.W.1 and through Ex.B1. The plaintiff failed to prove that Door No.127/C was used by the students of the School and the building in Door No.127/C was used for a philanthropic reason. The appellant is not entitled to declare the demand notices as null and void and the appellant is not entitled for refund of the property tax already paid. 24. In the above circumstances, Section 122(c) of the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, is not applicable to Door No.127/C. The question of law raised by the appellant is not acceptable. There is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 25. 24. In the above circumstances, Section 122(c) of the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, is not applicable to Door No.127/C. The question of law raised by the appellant is not acceptable. There is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 25. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2008 in A.S.No.174 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2001 in O.S.No.803 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. No costs.