SEMBALA VARADIAH CHETTY Vs. P PARTHASARATHY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case raises the question as to how far the decision of a Caste Panchayat can be held valid when the Panchayat seeks to impose social segregation or ostracism as a mode of punishment.

(2.) THE case arises out of a certain decision taken by Padmasaliya sub-sect of the Chettiar caste against P. W. 1, Parthasarathi Chetti, who was the headman of the community from 1952 to 1962. In C. C. No. 9240 of 1963, he complained that the aforesaid decision came within the mischief of Section 499 I. P. C. and amounted to defamation. The learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate upheld this contention, convicted the petitioner under Section 500 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was yet another person Jagannatha Chettiar arrayed as third accused in the complaint. He was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 258 (1) Cri P. C.

(3.) ABOUT 150 families belonging to the aforesaid Padmasaliya community reside in the Washermenpet area of the city. The community is said to own a Thanneerpandal at Perampedu with lands attached to it, a choultry, tank and a temple. Adult members of the community assemble at the temple premises. No. 8 Sanjeevarayan Koil Street, to take decisions on communal matters on intimation sent by the headman or the vice-headman. After P. W. 1 tendered his resignation as headman, the present petitioners were appointed by the community as headman and vice-headman and P. W. 1 handed over the records and account books to the committee members on 12. 8. 1962, He did not, however hand over the properties; but claimed to manage them as hereditary trustee and the demand made by the succeeding dharmakartha of the charity as per Ex. P. 1, and the subsequent notice of P. 4 sent by the present petitioners and others was not complied with. On the other hand, he replied that the first petitioners and others were indulging in activities with a view to harass him. In the circumstances, a meeting of the community was convened for 25. 4. 1963, and P. W. 1 was intimated about this meeting. He did not attend. The meeting was, therefore, adjourned to 29. 4. 1963, with intimation to P. W. 1. The adjourned meeting was attended by about 40 members of the community including P. Ws. 1 to 5. The first petitioner who presided over the meeting asked P. W. 1 to hand over management of the trust properties and when he refused to do so, a decision is said to have been taken ex-communicating P. W. 1 from the community and interdicting members of the community from visiting his house or inviting him for any functions of the community. P. W. 1 then caused notices to be sent to the two petitioners and five others complaining about the excommunication. The allegations in the notices were denied in the replies sent by the petitioners and others. P. W. 1 was not invited for the marriage of P. W. 3's daughter, and when questioned by P. W. 1, P. W. 3 replied that he could not do so in view of the community decision. Further correspondence passed between the counsel of the parties. Ultimately, a complaint was filed by the P. W. 1 under Section 500 I. P. C.