Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V Rao
Secy. Of State And Anr.
Versus
M. Murugesa Mudaliar And Ors.
Decided On : 1 November, 1928
Order 1 Rule 10 - Scope and Effect - Madras Local Boards Act (1920) Section 47(1), Section 199(b), Section 19, Section 11, Section 38 - The judgment discusses the scope and effect of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. in the context of a suit filed for a declaration of being a duly elected member of the District Board. It also delves into the relevant sections of the Madras Local Boards Act (1920) including Section 47(1), Section 199(b), Section 19, Section 11, and Section 38, which pertain to the election process, notification, and power of control over Local Boards by the Government.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration as a duly elected member of the District Board and for a mandatory injunction. The Government applied to be added as a party, which was refused by the lower Court. The plaintiff impleaded defendants against whom he had no grievance and omitted to join the parties whose action prejudiced his right.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Government was a proper party to the suit and should be added as a defendant. It reversed the lower Court's order and directed the Government to be added as a defendant. It also directed all members affected by the result of the suit to be brought on record as defendants.
Issues: The issues involved the scope and effect of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and whether the Government and other members were necessary and proper parties to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Government and other members were necessary and proper parties to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, as per the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. and relevant legal precedents.
Final Decision: The final decision was to add the Government as a defendant and bring all members affected by the result of the suit on record as defendants.
Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The first civil revision petition raises a question in regard to the scope and effect of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Munsifs Court for a declaration that he was a duly elected member of the Chingleput District Board. He impleaded as defendants: (1) the District Board of Chingleput and (2) the President of that Board. He prayed not only for a declaration as stated above but also for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to recognize him as a duly elected member of the District Board. The Government applied to the lower Court for being added as a party. That application was refused by the District Munsif and in this civil revision petition, his order is attacked by the Government.
2. The allegations in the plaint are shortly summarised thus by the learned District Munsif:
On 30th March 1928 the President, Taluk Board, Chingleput, convened a special meeting of the Taluk Board for the election of a member to the District Board. When the meeting commenced, there were 24 members present besides the president. A motion for adjournment was supported and opposed equally and on the casting vote of the president, the motion for adjournment was carried. The president and the 12 members who voted for the adjournment went away. The 12 members who opposed the motion thought that the adjournment was illegal and invalid and convened a meeting and elected one of their own number as chairman and in such meeting, the plaintiff was declared elected as a member of the District Board. It is alleged that the adjournment was illegal because out of the 12 members who voted for the adjournment two members had ceased to be so, long before the date and they had no right to take part in the meeting at all and as such their votes were improperly received. The plaintiff learns that the notification of the election in the Gazette has been withheld and a fresh meeting would be convened for the purpose. Ha asserts that he had been elected, wants a declaration accordingly and an injunction directing the defendants, the District Board, Chingleput and its President to recognize him as such and to transact all business of the District Board in co-operation with and after due notice to him.
3. In the plaint there are allegations impeaching the conduct of the President of the Taluk Board and questioning the legality of the notification in the Gazette published by the Government. But there is not a single allegation made either against defendant 1 or 2. Why did the plaintiff then implead as defendants, those against whom he had no grievance and omit to join the parties, whose action, he alleges, prejudiced his right? This may, at first sight appear surprising; but the truth seems to be, that the President of the District Board informed the Government that in his view the plaintiffs election was valid. This apparently led the plaintiff to believe that if he adopted this method he would easily succeed in the suit. The application of the Government was opposed both by the plaintiff and the defendants. The question is, is it proper, in the circumstances, to make the Government party?
4. Section 47 (1), Madras Local Boards Act (1920) enacts that the members of a District Board other than certain members, shall be elected by the Taluk Board "in the prescribed manner." It is under this section that the plaintiff claims to have been elected. The local Government has power under Section 199 (b) to make rules with reference to all matters relating to elections of members of Local Boards. Rules have been accordingly made for the election of members to the District Board by Taluk Boards. The following are the relevant rules:
Rule 2. "The President of the Taluk Board shall thereupon summon a meeting of the Taluk Board for the purposes of proceeding with the election."
Rale 6. "If there are more candidates than there are vacancies, the votes of the members present at the meeting shall be tak
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
