Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Bapatla Venkata Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
Sikharam Ramakrishna Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10-17-57
VILLAGE OFFICES ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - APPOINTMENT OF KARNAM - SELECTION FROM HEREDITARY FAMILY - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT - ESTOPPEL - [SECTION 6(1), 13, 21, MADRAS HEREDITARY VILLAGE OFFICES ACT, 1936]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, belonging to a family that held the post of karnam hereditarily, filed a suit challenging the order of the Collector appointing the defendant as the karnam of Bapatla East village. The plaintiff claimed that the selection should have been made from the members of his family, as the office of assistant karnam, which was abolished, was also hereditary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the claim did not fall within the purview of sections 13 and 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1936. The court further held that the selection for the newly created post of karnam should be made from among the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office abolished, and that the defendant's contention that the selection could be made from among the families of both the plaintiff and the defendant was not tenable.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the selection for the newly created post of karnam should be made from among the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office abolished.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the claim did not fall within the purview of sections 13 and 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1936. Section 13 deals with claims to succeed to an office specified in section 3 of the Act, while section 21 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide any claim to succeed to any of the offices specified in section 3. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not a claim to succeed to an office, but rather a claim to be appointed to a newly created office under section 6(1) of the Act, and therefore, it did not fall within the purview of sections 13 and 21. 2. The court held that the selection for the newly created post of karnam should be made from among the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office abolished. The court interpreted section 6(1) of the Act to mean that the Collector had the discretion to choose the best qualified person from among the families of the last holders of the office, but that the choice need not be confined to the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office extinct. However, the court held that in the present case, the plaintiff's family had a hereditary right to the office of karnam, and therefore, the Collector should have selected the plaintiff for the newly created post.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the lower court, which had declared the order of the Collector appointing the defendant as the karnam of Bapatla East village to be illegal.
( 2 ) ORIGINALLY there was one karnam for the whole of the village of Bapatla. The plaintiff belonged to the family which held that post hereditarily from time immemorial, his father Venkatachalapathi Rao being the last. There was also an assistant karnam of the village and 1st defendant s father was appointed to the post on 10th August, 1929. In 1948, there was a bifurcation of Bapatla into two villages, east and west. The plaintiff s father was appointed karnam of Bapatla west and the 1st defendant who then happened to be assistant karnam was appointed as the karnam of Bapatla East, the post of assistant having been abolished. At the time of the proposals for the appointment of karnam for Bapatla, East, the 1st respondent applied to be considered for the post on the ground that the selection for both the posts should be made from the members of his family. The Tahsildar sent up proposals to the Sub-Collector suggesting that the 1st defendant who was acting as the assistant karnam should be appointed in preference to the 1st respondent and this was accepted by the Sub-Collector. On appeal, the order of the Sub-Collector was consrmed. It is to set aside this order that the present suit was instituted by the 1st respondent.
( 3 ) THE defence to the suit was that a civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim to any of the offices specified in section 3 of the Madras Hereditary Village offices Act (hereinafter called the Act) and that the Collector could choose the best qualified person to fill the office from among the families of last holders of the office under section 6 (1) of the Act and Board s Standing Order 148, Clause 2 and the choice need not be confined to the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office extinct.
( 4 ) THE lower Court overruling the objections decreed the suit. It held that the civil Court s jurisdiction was not excluded, that the provisions of section 6 (1) were mandatory and that persons belonging to a family which had hereditary right in the office should be selected for the post newly created under section 6 (1 ). Aggrieved by that judgment, the 1st defendant has brought this appeal. In support of the appeal, Mr. Kuppuswamy advanced three contentions: (1) that the view regarding the competency of the Civil Court to take cognizance of suits of the above description is erroneous ; (2) that the selection should be made from amongst members of both the appellant s and 1st respondent s families as the office of assistant karnam which was abolished was also hereditary ; and (3) that the relevant provisions of the Hereditary Village Offices Act should be, struck down as they offend against Chapter III of the Constitution of India, the answer to be given on the first point bearing on jurisdiction depends upon the interpretation of sections 13 and 21 of the Act. Section 13 recites :-"any person may sue before the Collector for any of the village offices specified in section 3 or for recovery of the emoluments of any such office, on the ground that he is entitled under sub-section (2) or (3) of section 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, 1894, or under subsection (2) or (3) of section 10 or sub-section (2) or (3) of section 11 or section 12 of this Act, as the case may be to hold such office and enjoy such emoluments ; or, being a minor, may sue before the collector to be registered as heir cf the last holder of any such office ".
( 5 ) SECTION 21 excludes the jurisdictio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
