RAMALINGA KALINGARAYAR Vs. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, VADAKKUR SOUTH BY ITS PRESIDENT A. SWAMINATHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned District Munsif rejected all other contentions of the appellant and other defendants on merits. On the issue as to limitation, however, the learned District Munsif held that since the suit was filed on 12th June, 1967, all claims against the appellant and other members of the panchayat arising prior to 12th June, 1964 would be barred by limitation.

(2.) According to the learned District Munsif, the cause of action for recovery of the amounts arose in July, 1962 when the dam was constructed. He held that the cause of action for the recovery of money unauthorisedly spent on such construction must be held to have arisen only at that time. Hence, the suit should have been filed within three years from the said date.

(3.) As for the claim for recovery of amounts that had been spent towards legal charges, the learned District Munsif held that the expenses incurred prior to 1964 cannot be recovered. He however held that amounts which were spent subsequently were not barred by limitation. He dissected the legal expenses and found that out of the total expenses incurred towards legal charges amounting to Rs. 535.82, expense amounting to Rs. 119.25 were well within the period of limitation. He accordingly decreed the suit only to this extent of Rs. 119.25 with proportionate costs. Against this decree, the panchayat appealed. The only question argued in the appeal was, whether the suit was barred by limitation in respect of the amount claimed by the panchayat other than Rs. 119.25 for which the trial Court had passed a decree? The learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the District Munsif that the suit was barred by limitation with reference to some of the items claimed by the panchayat. He did not agree with the view that the cause of action relating to the claim for recovery of unauthorised expenses in connection with the construction of the weir arose only in July, 1962, when the weir was constructed. In his view, at the time when the expenses were incurred, the appellant was the president of the panchayat and the other defendants were also members of the, panchayat and all of them were parties to the said construction and expenses connected therewith. In such an event, it was unthinkable that any of them acting for the panchayat would have filed a suit for recovery of the very expenses which they had incurred in the name, of the panchayat. On this basis, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the cause of action for recovery of these amounts from the appellant and other members of the panchayat could only be said to arise after the new panchayat came to be constituted. He referred to the limitation provisions Contained in Section 173(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 1958, which prescribed a three years period of time for filing a suit for recovery of the, amount surcharged against the president and other members of the panchayat. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this three years' period must be computed from the date when the new panchayat assumed office. In construing Section 173(2) of the Act in this manner, he relied on the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Subbiah Thevar v/s. Samiappa Mudaliar : AIR 1938 Mad 353 . The learned Subordinate Judge found that after removal of the appellant a new panchayat was constituted and the president and other members of the new panchayat assumed office only in February, 1965. He accordingly held that the cause of action for the suit arose only in February, 1965 on the basis of which the suit filed in 1967 was well within the period of limitation. He, therefore, modified the decree of the lower Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the entire amount for which the, suit claim was made against the appellant.