VASUDEVAN PILLAI Vs. BHAVANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this Second Appeal is whether the suit should have been dismissed for the plaintiffs failure to produce along with the plaint, an order of the Government permitting him to seek redress regarding Service Inam lands in respect of which the suit was instituted. The relevant statutory provision was contained in S. 8 of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code of 1100. The Section as it stood on 11.8.1123, the date of institution of the suit, was in these terms:-

(2.) As the laws stood on the date of the institution of the suit, it was open for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the requisite permission of the Government had not been produced by the plaintiff and such a dismissal would not have been open to objection. The 1st defendant wanted this question to be decided first but the Trial Court ordered that the same would be heard after his examination. The first defendant does not appear to have pressed this question after his examination was over and by the time the case was finally heard, the plaintiff had obtained the permission necessary for the prosecution of the suit. It was contended by Shri M.P. Ramakrishna Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant, that the permission of the Government not having been produced along with the plaint, the suit should have been dismissed, in spite of the fact that such permission was obtained during the course of the trial. The specific question whether production of such sanction during the pendency of the suit was sufficient compliance with S. 8 does not appear to have arisen for decision in any of the reported cases of this court or of the High Court of Travancore. However, in Lekshmi Pillai v. Bhagavathi Pillai (28 T.L.R. 250) reference is made to an unreported decision of the Travancore High Court in A.S. No. 405 of 1083 and A.S. No. 18 of 1084 wherein it was held that such sanction given either before or during the suit was sufficient compliance with S.7(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, corresponding to S. 8 of the Code of 1100. One of the points that arose for decision in the unreported case was whether the lower court should have taken cognizance of the suit as the plaint was not accompanied by Government sanction as required by S. 7(a) of the Code. Ramachandra Row and Muthunayagom Pillai, JJ. held as follows:-

(3.) I may here extract S. 4 of the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 which has come up for consideration in several decisions of the Indian High Courts:-