APPU L RM LAKSHMANAN CHETTI (DIED) Vs. UNION BOARD OF DEVAKOTTAI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, URMMCHMMANICKAVASAGAM CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, the Union Board of Devakottah, for a declaration that the Board is not entitled to levy profession tax from him for the year 1924-25, that the assessment and the collection thereof are illegal and for the recovery of Rs. 100 paid by him with interest from the date of collection. The defendant amongst other things contended that the suit is not maintainable as no notice as required under Section 225 of the Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) was given by the plaintiff before the suit. The petitioner's contention with reference to this objection regarding the maintainability of the suit was twofold: (1) that the present suit does not fall within the scope of the section inasmuch as the section contemplates only suits for compensation and damages, and (2) that even if notice is required he has complied with this requirement as he had sent Ex. A to the President of the Union Board. Ex. A is described as an appeal petition to the President relating to profession tax. In the cover the sender is described as the petitioner in respect of the profession tax. The petition ends with the sentence, "I shall wait for one month and on the strength of this very registered petition I shall file a suit in the local District Munsif s; Court." Ex. A was taken by the Union Board as an appeal preferred against the assessment made by the President.

(2.) The two points for decision arising from these contentions are: (1) whether a notice under Section 225 of Madras Act (XIV of 1920) is necessary in this case, and (2) if it is necessary, whether Ex. A would constitute a proper and valid notice under the section. On both these points both the Lower Courts decided against the petitioner. In the present Civil Revision Petition the validity of the decisions of the Lower Courts on both the points is questioned by the appellant.

(3.) Section 225, Sub-clause (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) enacts that No action shall be brought against any Local Board, or against any member or servant of such Board, or against any person acting under the directions of such Board or of a member or servant of such Board, on account of any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance or execution or intend-(1 execution of this Act, in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing shall have been delivered or left either at the office of the Local Board or at the place of abode of such member or servant or of such person, explicitly stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of abode of the intended plaintiff; and unless such notice be proved to have been so delivered or left, the Court shall find for the defendant.