CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. JALAJBASINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these : The respondent Srimati Jalaja Bashini Devi is the owner of premises No. 125, Harish Mukerjee Road. The Corporation of Calcutta in March 1924 assessed the land with the premises thereon to consolidated taxes. In arriving at the assessment the Chief Executive Officer valued the land at Rs. 2,750 a cotta and the house on it at Rs. 20,365. Under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act, the assessee appealed to the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. She objected both to the value of the house and value of the land. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court held the value of the building was Rs. 18,123 and the value of the land was Rs. 2,200. Against this decision the Calcutta Corporation have appealed to this Court under Section 142(3), Calcutta Municipal Act.

(2.) There is also a cross-objection by the respondent. Her contention is that the burden of proof has wrongly been placed on her and that it was for the Corporation to prove that the present value of the land was more than it was in 1917 when she purchased the property. She also contended that Rs. 350, the price of the electric fittings, should not be included. The appellant contends first of all that the learned Small Cause Court Judge has wrongly placed on him the burden of proving what was the value of the land at the time of the assessment in March 1924, Secondly that the Judge has come to a wrong finding of fact on the evidence as to what the value should be of the land.

(3.) A preliminary point has been discussed at some length as to what are the powers of the Court in dealing with this appeal. The appellant would seem to contend that it is open to us to go into facts. His contention would seem to be that this is not a second appeal as contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code and that Section 100 and Section 101, Civil P.C., have no application. It will appear that when the Corporation desire to make-an assessment or re-assessment they proceed under Section 131(1). The valuation and assessment are apparently made by the Executive Officer.