The interpretation of statutory provisions and the distinction between different forms of legal actions, such as suits and appeals, is crucial in determining the applicability of procedural requirements.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff (the appellant) had not, before instituting it, given the notice prescribed by Section 49, Madras Court of Wards Act (Act 1 of 1902). For the appellant the contention is that, owing to the peculiar character of the present suit, the serving of the notice under Section 49 is not a necessary requirement. In the course of a survey carried out in the defendants estate, under the Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act (Act 8 of 1923), the survey officers decision was against the plaintiff in respect of the boundary dispute in question. The appellants authority having confirmed that decision, the present suit has been brought under Section 14 of that Act. The relevant sections are Sections 10 to 14 and Section 18. Section 10 deals with the power of the survey officer to determine and record a boundary dispute. Sections 11 and 12 deal with appeals against orders inter alia made under Section 10. Section 13 provides how the completion of a survey is to be notified and goes on to enact:

Unless the survey so notified is modified by a decree of a civil Court under the provisions of Section Li, the record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries determined and recorded therein have been correctly determined and recorded.

2. Then Section 14 runs thus:

Any person deeming himself aggrieved by the determination of any boundary under Sections 9, 10 or Section 11 may, Subject to the provisions of parts 2 and 3, Limitation Act, 1908, institute a suit within three years from the date of the notification under Section 13 to set aside or modify the said determination and the survey Shall, if necessary, be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit and the alteration, if: any, shall be noted in the record.

3. The last relevant section is Section 18, which, in so far it is material to the present purpose, applies the provisions already referred to (relating to the survey of Government lands) to the conduct of the survey of lands in estates. Both at the time of the survey and on the date of the filing of the suit, the defendants estate was under the management of the Courts of Wards. Section 49, Court of Wards Act reads thus:

No suit relating to the person or property of a ward shall be instituted in any civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the District Collector specified in the notification under Section 19 or the Collector appointed under Section 16 as the case may be.

4. The question really turns upon whether the statutory suit prescribed by Section 14, Surveys and Boundaries Act is, or is not, a suit within the meaning of Section 49, Court of Wards Act. What is argued for the plaintiff is, that the suit under Section 14 is virtually an appeal from the decision made in the survey proceedings that being so, though the present proceeding is called a suit, it is, in fact, and if rightly understood, not a suit but an appeal. There is, I think, in this argument some confusion. The suit may be in the nature of an appeal, but what the Act has done is, to allow an appeal in the form of a regular suit. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to substitute the word "appeal" for the word "suit" in Section 14, for that is precisely the effect of Mr. L.A. Gopalakrishna Ayyars contention. It may be necessary for some purposes to bear in mind that the suit that has been provided for is "simply a form of appeal"; but there is no warrant for holding that the expressions "suit" and "appeal" are convertible terms. In Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra (1908) 35 Cal. 202 their Lordships of the Judicial Committee had to decide what, for the purpose of the Court Fees Act, She effect of a suit to set aside a summary order made in a claim proceeding, is. It was decided that such a suit was governed by Article 17 of Schedule 2 of that Act, which applies to suits, to alter or set