Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 176
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
M.L. Krishnamoorthi (Deceased) & Another
Versus
Gudiyattam Municipality Represented by its Commissioner, Gudiyattam Municipality
S.A.No.985 of 1999
Decided On :Decided On : 10-01-2012
For the Appellants:T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V.P. Sengottuvel, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the municipality is indemnified for acts done in good faith under Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and a suit for damages or compensation must comply with the notice requirement under Section 350.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act - Tax Collection - Section 352 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which provides indemnity to the government, municipal authorities, officers, and agents for acts done in good faith. The court also referred to Section 350, which mandates a notice before filing a suit for damages or compensation against the municipal council or its officers. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations in the context of the municipality's actions and the plaintiff's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the hereditary trustee of a temple, filed a suit against the municipality for defaming him and unlawfully collecting taxes. The trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the occurrence and defamation, and the municipality's actions were lawful. The plaintiff appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable under Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act as the municipality had acted in good faith and within its legal rights. The court confirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the municipality's actions in tax collection, the alleged defamation of the plaintiff, and the maintainability of the suit under the relevant sections of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the unlawful actions and defamation by the municipality, and the municipality had acted within its legal rights. The court emphasized the legal provisions of Sections 350 and 352 of the Act, which mandate notice before filing a suit and provide indemnity to the municipality for acts done in good faith.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were confirmed. Each party was left to bear their own costs.
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (during his lifetime) has preferred the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1998 passed in A.S.No.31 of 1995 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.1994 in O.S.No.625 of 1982 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam.
2. Pending Second Appeal, the Appellant/Plaintiff expired on 01.05.2003 and his son has been brought on record as 2nd Appellant as per order made by this Court in C.M.P.No.19176 of 2005. After the death of the original Appellant/Plaintiff, his son as Legal Representative has been brought on record as 2nd Appellant in the Second Appeal and he is prosecuting the Second Appeal before this Court.
3. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.31 of 1995 on 31.03.1998, has among other things observed that “On 19.04.1981, it comes to be known that the Respondent/Municipality has not taken any unlawful proceedings to collect the Tax from the 2nd Appellants father viz., the original Plaintiff and also that the suit filed by the Appellants father as Plaintiff against the Respondent/Municipality is not valid as per Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and that the finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard is a correct one. Further, it has also observed that at that time of occurrence, one Murugaiyanhas been the Commissioner of the Respondent/Municipality. As such, the proceedings ought to have been initiated by the Respondent/Plaintiff against him only. Also that as against Murugaiyan, then the Commissioner of the Respondent/ Defendant/Municipality, the suit should have been filed in his individual capacity and as such, the suit filed is not maintainable and dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.1994 in O.S.No.625 of 1982 passed by the trial Court.”
4. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 and 2 Issues and one Additional Issue have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Plaintiff, witnesses PW1 and PW2 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.39 have been marked. On the side of the Defendant/Municipality, witnesses DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 have been marked.
5. The trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that it is not established on the part of the Plaintiff that the occurrence has taken place on 18.04.1981 and further, it does not establish as to how the Plaintiff has been defamed resulting in damages and as such, has held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the compensation. Added further, it has also opined that the occurrence that has taken place on 18.04.1981, the Commissioner has tendered an apology, is not to be accepted and also that, the proceedings of the Defendant/Municipality are not against law. Furthermore, for the proceedings initiated by the Defendant/Municipality, no suit can be filed as per Section 352 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Act 5 of 1920) and resultantly, it dismissed the suit with costs of the Defendant/Municipality to be paid by the Plaintiff.
6. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 31.03.1998 in A.S.No.31 of 1995, the Appellants father (Plaintiff before the trial Court) has filed the instant Second Appeal as an aggrieved person before this Court.
7. Pending the Second Appeal, the 2nd Appellant (Legal Representative of the deceased Plaintiff) has since been brought on record as per order dated 02.03.2006 made in C.M.P.No.19676 of 2005.
8. At the time of admission, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law for determination.
“1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in saying that the suit is not maintainable under Section 352 of the said Act?
9. The Cont
