The central legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for declaration of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is impliedly barred by the Constitution, and civil court jurisdiction is prohibited in such matters.

1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1997 made in A.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 212. 1994 made in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

2. In the above second appeal, the defendants in the suit are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti against the defendant to pass a decree for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff belongs to Katunayakkan community denotified as Schedule Tribes and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue community certificate to the plaintiff as Katunayakkan community.

.4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

.According to the plaintiff, he is residing at Puliyur Village and belongs to Katunayakkan community notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu as Scheduled Tribe. The plaintiff has studied education upto 8th Standard and in all his school records, the community of the plaintiff has been noted as Katunayakkan. According to the plaintiff, his relatives, who were living in Thirukovilur, Panruti Taluk, belong to Katunayakkan community and have obtained their community certificates from the concerned Tahsildar. The plaintiff is in need of his community certificate to be produced before his employer so as get benefits such as promotion benefits, better service benefits, etc. According to the plaintiff, he applied to Sub-collector of Cuddalore for the community certificate on 14.02.1992. The said application was rejected. According to the plaintiff, the Sub Collector, Cuddalore have not made any enquiry with regard to the issuance of the community certificate. According to the plaintiff, the rejection of the application is against the principle of natural justice. Again the plaintiff issued statutory notice calling upon the Sub Collector, Cuddalore to issue Community Certificate. But the said application was also rejected by the Sub Collector on 10.09.1992. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the above suit.

.5. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:-

.According to the defendants, they are not the competent authorities for issuing Katunayakkan Community certificate and only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore is the competent authority to issue community certificate. According to the defendants, the second defendant has confidentially enquired about the community of the plaintiff and found that the applicant belongs to Kuravar community, which is Schedule Caste community and also reported the matter to the Sub Collector. On that basis, the Sub Collector rejected the application. According to the defendants, the intention of the plaintiff is to get a false community certificate from the competent authority. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined three witnesses and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, decreed the suit as prayed for.

.7. Aggrieved over the judgment and degree of the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.NO.74 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti. The lower appellate court also after taking into consideration the materials available on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal

8. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the courts below, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.

9. Heard Mr.R. Muthaian, learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the appellants and Mr.R. Yashad Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

.10. At the time of admission of above Second Appeal, the following substantial question o