BAPATLA VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. SIKHARAM RAMAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 1st defendant against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla. The 1st respondent laid an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla for a declaration that the order of the Collector in proceedings under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, dated 5th August, 1950, made in appeal from the order of the Sub-Collector appointing the 1st defendant as the karnam of Bapatla was illegal. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly set out.

(2.) Originally there was one karnam for the whole of the village of Bapatla. The plaintiff belonged to the family which held that post hereditarily from time immemorial, his father Venkatachalapathi Rao being the last. There was also an assistant karnam of the village and 1st defendant's father was appointed to the post on 10th August, 1929. In 1948, there was a bifurcation of Bapatla into two villages, east and west. The plaintiff's father was appointed karnam of Bapatla West and the 1st defendant who then happened to be assistant karnam was appointed as the karnam of Bapatla East, the post of assistant having been abolished. At the time of the proposals for the appointment of karnam for Bapatla, East, the 1st respondent applied to be considered for the post on the ground that the selection for both the posts should be made from the members of his family. The Tahsildar sent up proposals to the Sub-Collector suggesting that the 1st defendant who was acting as the assistant karnam should be appointed in preference to the 1st respondent and this was accepted by the Sub-Collector. On appeal, the order of the Sub-Collector was conSrmed. It is to set aside this order that the present suit was instituted by the 1st respondent.

(3.) The defence to the suit was that a civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim to any of the offices specified in section 3 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (hereinafter called the Act) and that the Collector could choose the best qualified person to fill the office from among the families of last holders of the office under section 6(1) of the Act and Board's Standing Order 148, Clause 2 and the choice need not be confined to the members of the family which had hereditary right to the office extinct.