MAHALINGAM ASARI Vs. LAKSHMANA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both these revision petitions is a goldsmith of Thirukkarangudi village in Tirunelveli District. They raise for resolution an interesting conflict of decision between the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in S.C.S. No. 92 of 1946, and the Village Panchayat Court of Kalakkad in a suit before them. On what appears precisely the same evidence they came to different findings of fact in the following curious circumstances.

(2.) LAKSHMANA Reddiar, the respondent, it is common ground, gave this goldsmith a lump of gold weighing 15.9/4 kalanjis on 12th June, 1945, to make a pair of bangles for his daughter. This is also evidenced by a receipt admittedly signed by the goldsmith and produced from Lakshmana Reddiar's custody. Lakshmana Reddiar's case set out in a notice Ex. P -2, dated 20th June, 1946, was a demand on the goldsmith to make and deliver the bangles or to return the gold. This was countered by a reply, Ex. D -I, dated 28th June, 1946, by the goldsmith to the effect that he had made the bangles and delivered them to Lakshmana Reddiar on 4th August 1945, and he claimed Rs. 52 -8 -0 for making charges and some gold which he supplied. Lakshmana Reddiar filed a Small Cause suit in the Sub -Court on 20th July, 1946, to recover Rs. 585 as value of the gold he had given to the goldsmith. The goldsmith filed a suit in the Thirukkarangudi Panchayat Court for Rs. 50 as making charges of the bangles alleging that he had in fact delivered them to Lakshmana Reddiar. On the application of Lakshmana Reddiar the District Munsiff of Ambasamudram transferred the suit to the Panchayat Court of Kalakkad village about six miles away.

(3.) THE Kalakkad Panchayat Court took the other suit up for hearing after the Subordinate Judge had disposed of the Small Cause suit. Under Section 17 of the Village Courts Act, no Village Court shall try any suit which has been heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a former suit between the same parties. The Panchayat Court was aware of this section and gave it a curious interpretation. They took the view that the suit filed in the Panchayat Court was earlier in point of time and the decision of the Subordinate Judge did not therefore preclude them from trying the suit. They heard exactly the same witnesses and came to a totally different finding to the effect that the goldsmith had actually made these bangles and delivered them to Lakshmana Reddiar. They accordingly decreed the suit after an elaborate judgment written in Tamil and signed by seven members of the Court. Lakshmana Reddiar applied to the District Munsiff in revision, who found himself in a position of obvious difficulty. Holding that the Panchayat Court should not have taken upon itself to decide a suit which had already been decided by the Subordinate Judge, and moreover, on no real ground, that the Panchayat Court were biased in favour of the goldsmith he set aside their decree and withdrew the suit to his own file for disposal pending disposal of the revision petition, C.R.P. No. 265 of 1947, filed by the goldsmith in this Court. Subsequently the goldsmith filed the other revision petition, No. 1392 of 1947, to revise the District Munsiff's order.