VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent was ordered to be decreed and permanent injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent restraining the appellant-defendant from recovering the amount of Rs. 850.50 paise.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery on account of the amount of water tax and house tax respectively charged by the appellant-defendant- Municipal Committee illegally, relating to shop and house situated at Abohar of the plaintiff for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 and also the interest charged on the said amount. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the appellant-defendant-Municipal Committee had imposed double tax for the same properties and the taxes being levied are known as house tax and water tax, which are charged on the rental value of the property. It was claimed that house tax has nothing to do with the water tax as the supply of water which is charged separately from the customers which is shown as water rate. It was claimed that continuation of the said tax is un-desirable as well as illegal. It was claimed that the appellant-committee had acted in excess of its jurisdiction in calculating the value of the building for the purpose of house tax. The act of the committee to effect recovery was also challenged. The suit was contested by raising preliminary objections that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in hearing the suit of the plaintiff; plea of estoppel was also taken. On merit, it was claimed that the appellant-committee has been charged both the taxes under the law by order of the Punjab Government. It was also claimed that water tax was being charged even before the enforcement of the Constitution of India. An objection was also raised that the suit was not competent as no appeal was filed to the Deputy Commissioner against the house tax, charged by the defendant-committee prior to 1978-79. In the replication, the allegation made in the complaint was reassessed on the pleadings of the parties and the following issues were framed as under :- "1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendant ? If so, what that amount is ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct ? OPD. 4. Whether the notice given by the plaintiff under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is a valid one ? OPP 5. Whether the water tax was imposed by the defendant before coming into force of the Constitution of India ? So, to what effect ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of caused of action ? If so, to what effect ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP. 8. Relief."
(3.) THE learned courts below have held that imposition of water tax was totally without jurisdiction as the Municipal Committee acted beyond the jurisdiction to recover the water tax, holding that the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. As regards house tax is concerned, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that the provision of Section 61 of the Act was not properly applied and as such, the same is to be held in violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.;