Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2234 (MAD)

Athimamunivar Samudhaya Arakattalai Nagercoil, Maniyadichaan Kovil v. Tahsildar Agastheeswaram Taluk Nagercoil

2020-11-24

R.MAHADEVAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2019 passed in A.S.No.51 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.285 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. 2. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that one Chidambaram administered and managed the 1st appellant/1st Plaintiff's trust, without any election held the post unlawfully. On 22.02.2009, the appellants 2 and 3/plaintiffs 2 and 3 were elected as trustees of the 1st appellant/1st Plaintiff's trust and so far the erstwhile trustee not submitted the accounts to the present trustees. While being so, the Village Administrative Officer issued a notice dated 17.03.2009, demanding Rs.6,13,227/- as urban property tax due to the Government. The main contention of the appellants/plaintiffs is that without any show cause notice and without opportunity of hearing, the defendants issued the demand notice dated 13.03.2009, which is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the appellants/plaintiffs constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.285 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District for the relief of declaration to declare the demand notice dated 13.03.2009 is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants not to take any coercive action. 3. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and filed written statement by denying all the averments made in the plaint. In the written statement, it is averred that proper notices were sent to the appellants/plaintiffs to pay the Urban Land Tax. Suppressing the said fact, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit and the appellants/plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit against the Government. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Before the trail Court, on the side of the appellants/plaintiffs, the third appellant/third plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and three documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked. 5. Based on the available records, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and more particularly, held that the suit is barred under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. 6. On the side of the defendants, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked. 5. Based on the available records, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and more particularly, held that the suit is barred under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.51 of 2017 and the lower appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 27.02.2019, dismissed the appeal suit and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 7. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants / plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the Courts below have not properly analyzed the plaint averments and failed to consider the specific contention of the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint that without any enquiry or opportunity of personal hearing, the respondents/defendants have issued the demand notice dated 13.03.2009. 9. The following substantial questions of law are raised by the appellants/plaintiffs: a) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit on the ground of jurisdiction more particularly on the ground of bar under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966? b) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit simply on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when there is no evidence on the side of the defendants to substantiate their pleadings before the trial Court? 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the pleadings and the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 11. The trial Court in its judgment has categorically held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for payment of urban land tax and therefore, the suit is barred under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. The appellate Court has also confirmed the same. Since the said findings are based on the settled position of law that no suit will lie against the assessment made for payment of urban land tax, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted. 12. The appellate Court has also confirmed the same. Since the said findings are based on the settled position of law that no suit will lie against the assessment made for payment of urban land tax, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted. 12. Since the findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent in nature and the lower appellate Court independently applied its mind to the entire materials available on record and chosen to concur with the findings rendered by the trial Court, this Court is unable to interfere with the said findings. In the considered opinion of this Court, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 13. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.