SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 14

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
K.Venugopal (died) & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner & Secy & Others - Respondents
S.A.NO.211 OF 1997
Decided On : 08 January 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.N.Kannadasan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.M.C.Swamy, Spl.G.P.

Due to commission of grave illegality by Lower Appellate Court interference by High Court warranted.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Second appeal-Suit for declaration of petitioner as member of Konda Reddy Community-Held-Lower appellate court committing grave illegality which warranted interference by High Court.

Judgment :-

The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in applying the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4725/95 which is relating to the grant of interim order for the continuance of service of an employee in a matter wherein an individual has approached for the alteration of date of birth on the verge of his retirement?

(b) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in holding that the appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court and he is bound to convince the third respondent only in deciding his community status in spite of the fact that the revenue authorities have failed to consider various documentary evidence adduced on an earlier occasion?

(c ) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in summarily rejecting all the documentary evidence by observing that they are related to different persons, even though, number of documents actually belonging to the brothers, father and uncle of the appellant herein?

(d) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in reversing the judgment of the trial court without looking into appreciating several judgments delivered by this court on the issue in question in identical cases?

2. The sole appellant died pending second appeal. Therefore his legal representatives have been brought on record. The deceased sole appellant was the only plaintiff in the suit. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Therefore for convenience sake in this judgment the parties to the suit would be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.270/1987 before the District Munsif, Bhavani for a declaration that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community coming under the list of Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution and for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from verifying, challenging and cancelling the community certificate issued by the head quarters Deputy Tahsildar and for other reliefs. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a common written statement and D4 filed a separate written statement. The plaintiff examined, in support of his case, two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2, including himself as P.W.1 and marked as many as 34 exhibits as Exs.A1 to A34. On behalf of defendants 1 to 3, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and one exhibit was marked as Ex.B1. The learned trial Judge on merits decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree of the trial court. That is how the plaintiff is before this court in the second appeal, which was admitted, as already stated, on the questions of law referred to earlier. Heard Mr.N.Kannadasan learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.M.C.Swamy learned Special Government Pleader appearing for defendants 1 to 3.

3. Inasmuch as the judgment of the lower appellate court is a reversing judgment, I am inclined to give the minimum facts, as borne out by the pleadings, to appreciate the controversy. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:

"The plaintiff belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which is classified as one of the tribal community under the Constitution of India; his ancestors also belonged to the same community; they were originally from Andhra Pradesh, who then migrated into the territories of Tamil Nadu; their mother tongue is Telugu; the plaintiff was born in Illipili Village in Guruva Reddiyur on 07.05.1962; he did his pre-university in the Government college at Ooty and joined the service of D4 on 24.07.1983; the other residents of Illipili Village recognised the plaintiff and his family members as belonging to Konda Reddy Community; the school certificate of the plaintiff shows his community as Konda Reddy Community; when D4 wanted the plaintiff to produce a community certificate, he approached D3; D3 without holding a proper enquiry, rejected the request; the petitioner challen

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top