Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1952 Supreme(Mad) 326

(1953) 1 MLJ 410 (Mad)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Present : Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Venkatarama Aiyar, XJ.
Case Number(s) : L.P.A. No. 134 of 1952 and W.P. No. 317 of 1952.
Judgement Date : Friday 07th of November 1952
Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammal .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Madras, represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and others .....Respondent(s)

Advocates:
K.V. Venkatasubramania Aiyar, K.S. Desikan and V.C. Sri Kumar for Appellant.
R. Kesava Aiyangar, K.S. Ramamurthi, K. Parasaran and the Government Pleader (P. Satyanarayana Raju) for Respondents.

A person not a party to a proceeding can file an appeal against the decree or judgment in such proceedings only if he or she would be bound by the decree or judgment and would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

Headnote:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - RIGHT TO APPEAL - PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING - LEAVE TO APPEAL - TEST TO BE APPLIED - MADRAS COURT OF WARDS ACT (I OF 1902), SECS. 15, 62 - MADRAS ACT XXVI OF 1948.
Fact of the Case:

Lakshmi Ammani, the seniormost widow of the late Zamindar of Marungapuri, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the State of Madras and the Court of Wards to deliver possession of the Marungapuri Zamin properties to her. Ponnalagu Ammani, the second widow, filed an application for leave to prefer a Letters Patent appeal against the order passed by Subba Rao, J., on the ground that she was a person whose rights were affected by the said decision and as an aggrieved person she should be granted leave to file an appeal though she was not a party to the petition.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. It held that the judgment of Subba Rao, J., was not a judgment in rem and was binding only as between Lakshmi Ammani and the Government and the Court of Wards. It further held that Ponnalagu Ammani would not be bound by the judgment and that she could take other steps to prevent the Government and the Court of Wards from delivering possession of the properties to Lakshmi Ammani.
Issues: 1. Whether a person not a party to a proceeding can file an appeal against the decree or judgment in such proceedings? 2. If so, what is the test to be applied to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person not a party to a proceeding can file an appeal against the decree or judgment in such proceedings only if he or she would be bound by the decree or judgment and would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings. 2. The test to be applied to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted is whether the person not a party to the proceeding would be bound by the decree or judgment and would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent.

Judgment: L.P.A. No. 134 of 1952. -

This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Subba Rao, J., in C.M.P. No. 13519 of 1950. That petition was filed in the following circumstances. Krishna Vijaya Poochaya Naicker, Zamindar of Marungapuri, an impartible estate situated in Tiruchirapalli district, died on 17th September, 1926, leaving behind him three widows, Lakshmi Ammani, Ponnalagu Ammani and Muthulagu Ammani. As one of the incidents of impartible estates in Southern India is that the estate is descendible to a single heir, the seniormost of the three widows would be first entitled to succeed. The Government, on the assumption that Lakshmi Ammani was the seniormost of the widows, proceeded to exercise powers conferred on them by the Madras Court of Wards Act. On nth July, 1927, the following notification was published in the Fort St. George Gazette and in the Tiruchirapalli District Gazette:

"Under section 15 of the Madras Court of Wards Act, 1902, His Excellency the Governor in Council declares Lakshmi Ammani Ammal, the proprietrix of the Marungapuri estate in the Kulitalai taluk of the Tiruchirapalli District to be incapable of managing her property and directs the Court of Wards to assume the superintendence of that property.

2. The Collector of Tiruchirapalli will discharge in respect of the property the duties imposed On a Collector by the said Act."

It is common ground that in pursuance of this notification the Court of Wards assumed the superintendence not only of the impartible estate of Marungapuri but also other partible properties left by the deceased Zamindar.

The late Zamindar left behind him a will dated 30th July, 1915, and a codicil dated 10th August, 1926. Ponnalagu Ammani alleged that she took the son of her daughter in adoption to her husband on 1st December, 1949, under the authority given to her by her husband in the will and the codicil. She appears to have sent a petition to the Government on 6th January, 1950, on behalf of the minor adopted son. Lakshmi Ammani filed another petition on 1st May, 1950, evidently attacking the validity of the alleged adoption. The Government passed an order, G.O. No. 2709 on the 9th October, 1950, dealing with both the petitions and communicated portions of their order to the two widows respectively. The following is the portion of the order communicated to Ponnalagu Ammani:

"(5). With reference to her petition dated 6th January, 1950, read above, Srimathi Ponnalagtn Ammani is informed that the Government have directed the Court of Wards to release from its superintendence the properties pertaining to Marungapuri estate which are now under its superintendence As, however, there is dispute as to title to the properties between the senior Zamindarini and the adopted boy the Government have decided to retain custody to enable either of the claimants to. obtain suitable orders from the civil court in regard to the custody of the properties."

To Lakshmi Ammani the Government communicated paragraph 4 of their order which runs as follows:

"(4). With reference to her petition, dated 1st May, 1950, read above Srimathi Lakshmi Ammani is informed that the Government have been advised that the adoption made by Srimathi Ponnalagu Ammani is valid in law and that she (Srimathi Lakshmi Ammani) has no longer any subsisting legal right or title to the impartible and partible properties of the late Zamindar which are in the custody of the Court of Wards and that it is therefore not possible to hand over possession of such properties without an order of a civil court. The Government have directed the Court of Wards to release the properties from its superintendence. She is informed that in case she does not obtain suitable orders from a civil court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order regarding the custody of the properties, the Government will on the expiry of that period, take such steps in regard to them as they may consider suitable and n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document