TADIKONDA SUBBARAYUDU Vs. TADIKONDA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for decision in the second appeal is whether a Judge can hear and dispose of an appeal filed against his own decree and judgment and whether the consent of parties confers jurisdiction on him to hear the appeal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the questions of law, it is necessary to set out only a few relevant facts. The respondent herein filed the suit the recovery of possession of the plaint scheduled properties and for recovery of the rents due for 3 years preceding the suit. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif, Sri D. Subba Rao. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, confirmed the finding of the District Munsif that the tenancy was not made out. But, he however allowed the application for the amendment of the plaint and remanded the suit to the District Munsif. As against the order of remand, C.M.A. No. 698 of 1952 was filed before the High Court of Madras and the order of remand was set aside by Mr. Justice Mack on 7th May, 1954. He held that instead of remanding the suit, the Subordinate Judge ought to have called for a finding on the issue, which the amended plaint raised, and disposed of the appeal after the receipt of the finding. In accordance with the order of the High Court, the District Munsif submitted finding and the appeal was disposed of by Sri D. Subba Rao, who was by that time promoted as a Subordinate Judge. He held in paragraph 2 of the judgment that he was competent to hear and dispose of the appeal against his own decree and judgment. The reason given by him is as follows:

(3.) The Subordinate Judge overlooked the mandatory provisions of section 17 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, which, in so far as it is relevant, enacts as follows: