1. It seems to me to be clear that the District Munsif was wrong in holding that Section 262 of the District Municipalities Act, IV of 1884, was not a bar to the suit. Clause (2) of that section expressly prohibits a suit in any Court to recover money collected under the authority of the Act, provided that the provisions of the Act have been in substance and effect complied with. There is no case made here that, in assessing plaintiff, any of the relevant provisions of the Act was not complied with, nor is this a suit falling within the proviso to Section 262.
2. Section 54 gives the power to the Chairman to decide the class in which a person has to be placed for professional tax and, in doing so, he has to satisfy himself as to the man's income. The action of the Chairman is subject only to an appeal to the Council under Section 97, and Section 101 provides that his assessment is final when there is no appeal to the Council, as was the case here. It would thus not be open to the civil Court to find that his assessment was erroneous on facts or go into the question of the amount of the person's income, as that is not a ground on 'which the application of the prohibition against suits in Section 252 can be avoided. In the case cited by the District Munsif, Municipal Council of Chidambaram v. Venkatanarayana Pillai 24 M.P 644 no question based on Section 262 was argued or considered and the case is, therefore, of no authority on the point before me. On the other hand, it was ruled in Municipal Council, Nellore v. Rangayya 19 M.K 10 that even when the tax was wrongly levied on a house which was not completed and occupied, Section 262 barred the suit to recover the tax paid from the Municipality and that the aggrieved party's remedy was only by an appeal under Section 97 of the Act.
3. As I hold this suit was barred by Section 262, it must be dismissed. The civil revision petition is allowed and the decree of the lower Court is set aside and plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs here and in the Court below.