GUNTREDDI SOMI NAIDU BEING MINOR Vs. GUNTREDDI RAMI NAIDU
LAWS(APH)-1955-1-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 27,1955

GUNTREDDI SOMI NAIDU, BEING MINOR BY NATURAL FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND MARIDANA POLI NAIDU Appellant
VERSUS
GUNTREDDI RAMI NAIDU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FATEH SINGH V. GOPAL NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KAMESWAR RAO V. JAGANNADHA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]
NARASIMHA RAO V. VENKALARAMANA RAO [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the appellant herein is not the adopted son of late Guntreddi Taviti Naidu who was the village munsif of Parajapadu. The appellant herein contended that he was duly adopted and that the suit for a declaration was not maintainable in the civil Court. Both the Courts below held that he was not duly adopted. The question of adoption, being a pure question of fact, has not been rightly agitated before me. The main point that was urged was that, as the appellant had filed V.O.S. No. 1 of 1948 in the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvatipur, praying that he was entitled to the office of the village munsif, the present suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act ought not to be entertained by the civil Court. For the purpose of appreciating this contention, it is necessary to set out a few material facts.
(2.)Late Guntreddi Taviti Naidu was working as the village Munsif of Parajapadu in Parvatipuram taluk and he died in or about 1st June, 1947. The plaintiff respondent herein applied to the revenue authorities for registration of his name as the office-holder and the Tahsildar of Parvatipuram conducted an enquiry and recommended his name. Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvatipuram, registered the plaintiff 's'name as the village munsif, appointing Setti Jagannadha Naidu as his deputy. The defendant thereupon filed V.O.S. No. 1 of 1948 in the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer for recovery of the office under section 13 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act. The respondent herein filed the present suit on 10th November, 1948, for a declaration that the appellant herein was not duly adopted by late Taviti Naidu.
(3.)In Kameswar Rao v. Jagannadha Sastri, (1941) 1 M.L.J. 12. Since reported in 1955 And. W.R. 21 (N.R.G.). Mr, Justice Venkataramana Rao 1 eld that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this description. The learned Judge held that section 13(1) of the Herditary Village Offices Act does not expressly or by necessary implication oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration that the adoption of the person seeking to claim the office' of a village munsif is not valid. In S.A. No. 2023 of 1950, I followed thi? judgment, though, on the facts of that particular case, I held that the lower appellate Court acted rightly in refusing to grant a declaration. I have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the validity of the appellant's adoption is not, in any way, affected or taken away by the provisions of the Hereditary Village Offices Act.
;


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