The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the scope of Civil Court's jurisdiction in adjudicating on the validity of community certificates. The judgment also clarified the validity of community certificates issued by Tahsildars based on a government clarification.

1. Since suits, appeals were disposed of by a common judgment the present second appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. In both the appeals the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Assistant Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Tahsildar, Paramakudi are the appellants. Respondent in both the appeals are brother and sister. Brother viz., Durairaj has filed O.S. No. 63 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to issue a community certificate in the revised format on the basis of the community certificate already issued in favour of the plaintiff on 1.2.1980. His sister viz., Guruvammal has filed suit in O.S. No. 60 of 1991 on the file of the same Court for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from initiating any enquiry including the enquiry contemplated in Roc. No. A3/269/90 regarding the issuance of a community certificate in her favour. The trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence granted decree in both the cases as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decrees the defendants therein preferred appeals in A.S. No. 73 and 74 of 1995 before the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram. By a common Judgment the appellate Court-dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the decree granted by the trial Court. Against the concurrent decision of the Courts below the Revenue Authorities have preferred the above second appeals.

3. On the following substantial question of law this Court has entertained both the second appeals on 24.7.1998: "Since the Court below have not properly applied the correct proposition of law applicable to the facts of the case and not considered the entire evidence applicable to the issue in question."

4. Heard Mr. N.Dhandapani, learned Government Advocate for appellants and Mr. V.Radhakrishnan, for respondents.

5. Learned Government Advocate by pointing out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. A. Gurusamy, 1997 (I) CTC 564 : 1997 (1) L.W 686 would contend that both the suits filed by the respondents in these second appeals are not maintainable and prayed for setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below.

6. On the other hand, Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present cases, since they are not seeking declaration to the fact that presidential notification is bad or their community is to be included in the List. He also contended that in the light of the factual findings rendered by both the Courts below based on acceptable oral and documentary evidence, interference by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is not warranted and prayed for dismissal of both the second appeals.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. According to the respondent in Second Appeal No. 993 of 1998 he belongs to Kattunaicken community. He obtained community certificate on 1.2.1980 stating that he belongs to Kattunaicken community after due enquiry by the third defendant. There is no dispute that Kattunaicken community is one of the communities listed under Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, he got an appointment in United Commercial Bank. After joining service in the Bank after some time the Bank issued a circular dated 21.12.1990 directing the employees who belong to Scheduled Tribe community to produce community certificate in the revised format to be issued in the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, accordingly he applied to the second defendant for grant of community certificate in the revised format. Since the second defendant refused to issue community certificate in the revised format, he filed the said suit.

9. The case of respondent in Second Appeal No.994 of 1998 is that she belongs to Kattunaicken community which is cla