NAGESH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that falls for adjudication in this petition is whether the daughter's son of the last holder of the office of karnam could be appointed as karnam of a village under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) One Hanumantha Rao, the holder of the office of karnam of the village of China Hotur (Kurnool District) died in 1952 leaving behind him three daughters with their children and the grandsons of a divided brother. On his death, there was a contest between the son of the eldest daughter who was a minor and the grandson of his divided brother who was also a minor, to be registered under section 10 (5) of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer registered the brother's grandson as the heir of the last holder in preference to the daughter's son and appointed a stranger as deputy to do the duties of the office pending the minor attaining majority, in the view that the heirs of the last office-holder claiming under a female could not be appointed to the office of karnam or headman.

(3.) The daughter's son carried the matter in appeal to the District Collector and further appeal to the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully. Hence he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main point for consideration, therefore, is whether there is any obstacle in the way of the daughter's son succeeding to the office of a karnam. For a proper appreciation of the question that arises for determination in this writ petition, it is necessary to read section 10 of the Act as originally enacted. That section recites :