SETHURAJA GOUNDER Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE CHEPAUK MADRAS
LAWS(MAD)-1952-7-18
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 31,1952

SETHURAJA GOUNDER Appellant
VERSUS
BOARD OF REVENUE, CHEPAUK, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, J. - (1.) This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28-4-1952. One Kalappa Gounder was the last 'Miras' Headman of Kilaveneri village, Thirumangalam taluk, Mathurai district. He resigned his post on 16-10-1945. The petitioner, the grandson of the said Gounder and who was alleged to be the adopted son of the said Kalappa Gounder, was registered to the office. In regard to the question whether the petitioner was the adopted son of Kalappa Gounder, there was litigation which finally ended in the High Court. The High Court held that he was not the adopted son of Kalappa Gounder. Respondent 2, who is a minor, filed a regulation suit No. 1 of 1950 claiming himself to be next heir of Kalappa Gounder and for his being registered as Headman. On 20-4-1951, the Revenue Divisional Officer Bet aside the order registering the petitioner and passed orders that respondent 2 should be registered in his place. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector of Mathurai. The Collector allowed the appeal holding that the suit filed by respondent 2 was time barred as the cause of action arose on 31-12-1945, when the petitioner was registered as headman and as the suit was not filed within three years from that date. Against the order of the Collector, respondent 2 preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Collector and restored that of the Revenue Divisional Officer) and held that the delay in filing the suit must be deemed to have been excused under Section 5, Limitation Act. The petitioner filed the aforesaid writ for quashing that order.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment of the Board of Revenue is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. A perusal of the judgment shows that the Revenue Board assumed that Section 5, Limitation Act would apply and therefore the delay in filing the suit could be excused. It is not contended that Section 5, Limitation Act applies. Indeed, it is conceded that Section 5, Limitation Act has no application for excusing delay in filing a suit under Section 14, Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act.
(3.) In the circumstances I must hold that there is an error on the face of the record. The Revenue Board applied a provision) which admittedly has no application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.