Back
1955 Supreme(AP) 146
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRY
MEDURI RAMA RAO - Appellant
Versus
MEDURI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY - Respondent
Decided On : 07-29-55
Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) bars civil courts from entertaining or deciding claims to offices like the karnam's office.
Headnote:
VILLAGE OFFICES ACT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT ORDER OF BOARD OF REVENUE IS ULTRA VIRES - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - MADRAS HEREDITARY VILLAGE OFFICES ACT (III OF 1895), SECTIONS 3, 13, 21, 23, 42 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT (I OF 1877), SECTION 42.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the Resolution and decree of the Board of Revenue dated 6-4-1950 in V. O. S. A. No. 9 of 1949 was illegal, ultra vires and void. The Court below decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and this decision is challenged on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit was barred by Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895), which expressly excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts to try or adjudicate upon rival claims to the karnam's office.
Issues: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue is ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Legislature has gone much further and enacted Section 21 barring civil courts from entertaining or deciding claims to offices like the karnam's office now in question and making such claims triable by the" Collector with a right of appeal to the District Collector, and of a further appeal to the Board of Revenue. See sections 13 and 23 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act is express, explicit, and peremptory in its terms and cannot be circumvented by a mere trick or device of pleading by framing a suit as one Tor declaration of the invalidity of the order of the Board of Revenue deciding that Gopalakrishnamurthy had a preferential claim to the office of karnam over Rama Rao, and that he should be appointed to the office.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 1 ) "this is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree in O. S. No. 108 of 1930 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dismissing his suit for a declaration that the Resolution and decree of the Board of Revenue dated 6-4-1950 in V. O. S. A. No. 9 of 1949 was illegal, ultra vires and void. The Court below decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and this decision is challenged on appeal. The Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act (III of 1895) will be referred to as " the Act" in this judgment. The facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. Rolupade is a proprietory village forming part of Nadim Tiruvur estate. The plaintiff s father Meduri Challayya was holding the office of headman and karnam of this village till 1910 when there was a bifurcation of the two offices. Challayya opted for the karnam s office and continued to retain it till 1927. In 1910, Nagabhushanam, a divided son of Challayya by his first wife, applied for and was appointed to the post of Village Headman of Rolupade, an office which he holds even now. When Challayya became old, he resigned the office of karnam on 6-8-1927 and his son by his second wife Rama Rao, the present plaintiff, was appointed karnam in the place of his father. In 1947, Gopala-krishnamurthy, a son of Nagabhushanam filed a suit V. O. S. No. 1 of 1947 in the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada for recovery of the office of karnam under Section 13 (1) of the Act. In that suit, Rama Rao was impleaded as a defendant along with the other members of the family. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the suit, and Gopalakrishnamurthy filed an appeal V. O. S. A. No. 1 of 1948 to the District Collector, who confirmed the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The ground on which the District Collector upheld the dismissal of the suit was that when Nagabhushanam was appointed as village headman in 1910, he had given up all claims of reversion to the karnam s post in favour of his step-brother Rama Rao at a time when Gopalakrishnamurthy had not been born, and that Nagabhushanam got himself appointed to the headman s post on the basis of such relinquishment. Gopalakrishnamurthy took up the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue in V. O. S. A. No. 9 of 1949. The Board of Revenue decided that Gopalakrishnamurthi, who belonged to the senior line was preferentially entitled to the office of karnam by virtue of the rule of lineal primogeniture, and that the relinquishment of the office by his father Nagabhushanam was not binding on his heirs. By its order dated 6-4-1950, the Board set aside the order of the Collector and appointed Gopalakrishnamurthy as the karnam.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this order of the Board, Rama Rao brought the present suit for a declaration that the order of the Board was ultra vires, illegal and void for several reasons which were set out in the plaint, and which may be summarised as follows: (1) There was no preliminary enquiry or finding about the fitness of Gopalakrishnamurthy for the office, such an enquiry and finding being a condition precedent to the appointment. (2) There was no vacancy in the office of karnam in 1950 when the appointment of Gopalakrihnamurthy was made, in as much as Rama Rao had functioned as karnam from 1927 to 1950 and still remained in that office. (3) The Board had no power to admit additional evidence on appeal and reverse the decision of the Collector. (4) The suit filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer was barred by limitation, and the appeal to the Board of Revenue was also filed out of time. (5) Nagabhushanam having relinquished his right to the office of karnam in 1910, Gopalakrishnamurthy who had not been born in 1910, and who was not the next heir to the last office holder, had no right to the office. Most of these objections are untenable. A preliminary enquiry or finding about the fitness of the appointee is not necessary, where, as in this case
