MANIAM PALANISAMI GOUNDER Vs. P KARUPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 345 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District munsif, Tiruppur, who lost before the trial court as well as the first appellate court, is the appellant before this court. He instituted the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 1000 by way of damages on the ground of a false complaint made by the respondent herein. The short facts that are necessary for purpose of appreciating the contention that is raised in the second appeal are as follows. The appellant herein was the village munsif of Nambiyamapalayam, while the respondent herein was the President of the Panchayat Board. Admittedly, there appears to have been some enmity between them. On 26-2-1963, the respondent herein sent a report to the Collector complaining of the theft of audit vouchers, muster rolls and other records of the Panchayat board premises by the appellant herein and three other members. A copy of this complaint was sent to the District Superintendent of police, who forwarded it to the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation. The Sub-Inspector of Police searched the premises of the appellant herein and ultimately dropped the complaint as false. It is thereafter the present suit was instituted by the appellant herein for recovery of Rupees 1000 by way of damages as mentioned above. One of the defences raised by the respondent herein to the suit was that the suit was bad for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 170 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (Madras Act XXXV of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Both the courts below have found in favour of the respondent herein on this point, even though they have come to the conclusion that the complaint preferred by the respondent herein was without reasonable and probable cause. It is on the basis of their finding on the question of noncompliance with the provisions of Section 170 of the Act, the suit of the appellant herein was dismissed. It is against this dismissal the plaintiff in the suit has preferred the present second appeal and contends that the conclusion of the courts below on the question of notice contemplated by Section 170 of the Act is erroneous in law. For the purpose of understanding this argument, it is necessary to refer to the provisions along with the preceding provisions as well as the succeeding provision. Sections 169, 170 and 171 of the Act, so far as they are material for purposes of this case are as follows:-

(2.) THE relevant expressions, which have to be referred to and considered in this second appeal are: "acting or purporting to actin the discharge of his official duty" occurring in Section 169 (1) and "in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act" occurring both in sub-section (1) of Section 170 and in section 171. These three sections are in pari materia with Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act X of 1950), which the act replaced. Similar provisions are to be found in certain other statutes as well, one such being the District Municipalities Act 1920 (Madras Act V of 1920 ). Section 350 (1) of that Act is as follows:-

(3.) IN view of this conclusion no interference whatever is called for with the decision of the courts below and accordingly the second appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.