Judgment.-In this second appeal, the plaintiff-appellant seeks in substance a declaration that two orders of the District Collector, Krishna, dated the 27th November, 1937, and 31st July, 1942, are illegal and ultra vires. In the suit he also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the District Collector, Krishna, to recognise the plaintiff as the permanent headman of the village of Thalagadadivi but that prayer is now out of the case and is not pressed. From 1937 the plaintiff was making unsuccessful attempts to assume charge as headman of the village after he had attained majority and qualified himself to the post. His right to the headmanship was recognised in 1933 during his minority and he was registered under section 10 (5) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act as the person entitled to succeed to the office. The plaintiff’s father, Malhkharjuna Prasada Rao was the village munsiff of Thalagadadivi till he was dismissed from service on 21st April, 1932, as he was found guilty of misappropriation of Government money amounting to over Rs. 1,000. The office was held by the family in hereditary right. The Revenue Divisional Officer who dismissed him from service by his proceedings dated 21st April, 1932, Ex. P-1, did not conform to the procedure applicable under section 10(4) of the Act. That sub-section empowers the collector to direct when a vacancy had occurred and when the holder of the office is dismissed or suspended, that until the death or return to duty of such last holder, the duties of the office shall be performed by some person duly qualified under sub-section (1) who is not an undivided member of the family of the dismissed or suspended officer. The disability, if imposed by a direction under this section, continues until the death of the dismissed holder. If a vacancy is caused by the dismissal of the holder of the office under section 10 (4) and if the collector did not think fit to issue a direction contemplated by section 10 (4), the vacancy has to be filled up under sub-section (6) as if the dismissed holder died at that moment; in other words, when there is no direction imposing a disability on an undivided member of the family of the dismissed office holder, such undivided member if he is otherwise entitled to hold the office is entitled to be appointed to fill up the vacancy under sub-section (6) of section 10. The direction actually given in Ex. P-1 was not in terms of section 10 (4). He merely stated there as follows:

“I therefore dismiss him from service and order that, during his lifetime no undivided member of his family should succeed to the post.”

This direction means that if the person entitled to succeed to the office at the time the vacancy had occurred becomes divided from the family, he should be entitled to succeed to the post. The Revenue Divisional Officer who can be assumed to have understood the import of the order he passed on the 21st April, 1932, followed up this order by registering the plaintiff who was then a minor aged 16 as the headman of the village in place of the dismissed Mallikarjuna Prasada Rao and also appointed as his deputy a Muhammadan following the procedure laid down in sub-section (5) of section 10. This conduct of the Revenue Divisional Officer makes it clear that he did not intend by his order of the 21st April, 1932, to impose a disability on the undivided member to succeed to the post under sub-section (6) of section 10 as the plaintiff could be recognised and registered as the successor to the office under that sub-section only if there was no direction contemplated and permitted by section 10 (4). What is more, the same Revenue Divisional Officer subsequently modified his order dated 9th January, 1933, Exhibit P-2 registering the minor plaintiff as the successor to the office and appointing a deputy by a subsequent order of 1st May, 1933, Exhibit P-3. In place of the Muhammadan deputy whom he appointed under the previous order, he appointed the plainti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document