P V SUBRAHMANYACHARY Vs. VALASALA CHENDRAMOULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision raises a question of considerable importance though 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. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the defendants-respondents under section 13 (1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895), hereinafter 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 was purchased through Court auction and the claims raised by the plaintiff's father were negatived and therefore the suit is not maintainable. 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 20th October, 1958, the plaintiff preferred this revision under section 115, of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) When this revision came up for hearing before our learned brother, Venkatesaro. J., a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the revision is not maintainable inasmuch as the Collector, whose order is challenged, is not a Court subordinate to the High Court. Since the point involved was one of considerable importance, our learned brother referred the revision to the Bench. For the clear appreciation of the points involved, it becomes necessary to read section 115, Civil Procedure Code. "The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court andn which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."

(3.) It is obvious that this section does not apply unless (1) the decision sought to be revised is that of a Court; and (2) such Court is subordinate to the High Court, As, in our opinion, the matter can be effectively decided by answering the second point, we propose to deal with that only. In our judgment, the Collector exercising jurisdiction under the Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It seems to us, therefore, unnecessary to deal with the question whether the Collector acting under the Act is a Court. Assuming, of course without deciding, therefore, that the Collector acting under the Act is a Court, the question which we have to consider is whether the Collector is a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of section 115, Civil Procedure Code.