P.V. SUBRAHMANYACHARI Vs. VALASALA CHANDRAMOULI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises a question of considerable importance tho ugh it has an affinity to certain recently decided cases. The material facts which give rise to the question posed before us can be very shortly stated.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the defendant-respondents under Section 13 (1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, III of 1895, here in after called the Act, for declaring and registering the plaintiff as the holder of the carpenter service of Gobburu village and for recovery of emoluments of the said service. The defence is that the suit land was purchased through court auction and the claims raised by the plaintiff "?s father were negatived and therefore the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) After proper enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer before whom the suit was instituted dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff went in appeal before the Collector, Kurnool, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is against this order of the Collector dated 20-10-1958 the plaintiff preferred this revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.