Harries, C.J. - (1.) This is a second appeal from a decree of a learned Additional District Judge made in favour of the Calcutta Corporation and upholding a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge. The Corporation brought a suit claming arrears of consolidated rates. The figures do not appear to have been contested, but the defence was that these arrears wee in respect of an increase in the valuation which was not binding upon the defendant.
(2.) It appears that originally the valuation of these premises were Rs. 50 per quarter which was increased to Rs. 51-14 per quarter and latter to Rs. 127-14 per quarter. The case for the defendant-appellant is that this last increase to Rs. 127-14 per quarter was made without any notice to her whatsoever. The trail court held that no notice had been given to the defendant-appellant, but the Civil Court could not interfere. In the view of the trial Court the defendant's only remedy when the valuation was increased was to make a representation to the Corporation, and on failure to obtain satisfaction, to appeal to the small Causes Court as provided by Section 139, 140 and 141, Calcutta Municipal Act.
(3.) The learned Additional District judge on appeal took a different point. It appears that the defendant succeeded a mutwali who died in the year 1935, but it appears that her name was not mutated in the Municipal records until 1938, the deadly being due to a dispute as to the right of mutwaliship. The Additional District Judge seems to have found that this increase in the valuation to Rs. 177 odd took place in 1938 after the defendant had become mutwali and therefore the defendant could have had her name mutated before this increase in valuation was made. As she had not been mutated the learned Additional District Judge held that she was not entitled to any notice and on that ground dismissed the appeal from the trial Court. It appears that the facts upon which the learned Additional District Judge decided this case are erroneous. On an examination of the record it is clear that this increase in valuation was made in 1935 or 1936 probably, as the appellant's predecessor had died and the defendant could not have had her name mutated, because she had first to establish that she was the real mutwali, and this she did not succeed in doing till 1938. The facts upon which the learned Additional District judge has decided this case are incorrect, but it appears to me that his decision is correct upon other grounds. It is clear that where properties are valued for upon other grounds. It is clear that where properties are valued for the first time or the valuation is increased special notice must be served on the owner or occupier of the property after such valuation or increase in valuation is made. That is provided for in section 138, Calcutta Municipal act.;