PATHIPUTTURU BATHINAYYA Vs. YEDAGANTI RAGHAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Jaganmohan Reddy, J., in W.P. No". 517 of 1955, raises an important question of law, namely, the right of a person who is outside the family, holding a hereditary village office, to institute a suit under section 13 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The office in question relates to the post of the karnam of Eguvaveedhi Village in Kalahasti Taluk, Chittoor District. It appears that one Sundararama Krishna Pillai (hereinafter referred to as Krishna Pillai), who was the last holder of that office, sent his resignation to the concerned Deputy Collector with a request that his sister's son, who was then a minor, might be registered as Isumdar and the 1st respondent appointed his deputy. The resignation was accepted on 26th April, 1954 and his request regarding the appointment of deputy was also complied with. The village which is an estate within the intendment of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) was taken over on 7th September, 1950, under section 3 of that Act. Krishna Pillai's nephew could not be registered for the reason that he had already succeeded to a similar office in another village. As there was none in the family of Krishna Pillai in the order of succession who was qualified to fill the post, the Deputy Collector, Estates Manager, Kalahasti, appointed the ist respondent as the permanent karnam. It is pertinent to note here that the appellant, who is said to have been discharging the duties of karnam off and on, also applied for being appointed as karnam but his application was rejected and the 1st respondent's application was accepted.

(3.) Two appeals were preferred against the order appointing the 1st respondent as the karnam, one by the nephew of Krishna Pillai and the other by the appellant, to the District Collector. The District Collector dismissed both of them on the ground that they were incompetent, there being no provision for an appeal in that, behalf. It was incidentally remarked in that order that it was open to the parties to invoke section 13 of the Act, if they were so advised. Thereupon, the appellant instituted a suit for recovery of the office of karnam under section 13 of the Act. An objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent as to the maintainability of the suit. Overruling this opposition, the Deputy Collector wanted to proceed with the trial of the suit. At that stage, the 1st respondent sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain the Deputy Collector from proceeding with the suit on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. The attitude adopted by the Deputy Collector, who was impleaded as the 2nd respondent, was that the suit was entertainable and that it was competent for him to deal with it.