N K R M N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. RAJA SRIMANTHU MUTHU VIJAYA RAGHUNATHA DORAISINGAM ALIAS GOURI VALLABHA THEVAR AVL, ZAMINDAR OF SIVAGANGA THROUGH HIS AUTHORISED AGENT AND DIWAN MRRMSUNDARAM ESQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Wadsworth, J., who confirmed on second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Ramnad, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah in O.S. No. 131 of 1929 on his file. The suit had been instituted by the trustees and hukhdars of three temples in the village of Naganathapuram, for a declaration that the boundaries fixed by the survey authorities between the village of Veeriyanandal belonging to the temples, and the adjacent village of Senjai belonging to the zamindar of Sivaganga were wrong and for the rectification of those boundaries in accordance with the true lights of the parties. At the time of the survey and at the date of the suit the Sivaganga zamindari was under the management of the Court of Wards and the latter were accordingly joined as the first defendant in the suit. The Court of Wards however dropped out of the litigation after the disposal of the suit in consequence of the zamindar having assumed possession of the estate. The zamindar stepped into their place in the lower appellate Court and has since been contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit disallowing all the contentions raised by the Court of Wards. One of those contentions was that the suit was incompetent as the condition precedent to the institution of a suit against the Court of Wards, namely, the issue of a proper notice under Section 49 of the Madras Court of Wards Act, had not been fulfilled. A registered notice Exhibit M in the case had been given to the Court of Wards before suit, but it was attacked as being defective in material particulars and therefore invalid. Differing from the trial Court, the learned District Judge on appeal upheld that contention and accordingly dismissed the suit. A second appeal was preferred to this Court and it came on before Wadsworth, J. He concurred with the decision of the learned District judge and dismissed the second appeal. Leave was however given by the learned Judge for preferring a Letters Patent appeal against his judgment and the appeal accordingly now comes before us.

(2.) The notice in question is as follows: To, 1 The District Collector of Ramnad and Agent of the Court of Wards Sivaganga estate at Madura. 2. The Estate Collector, Court of Wards, Sivaganga Estate, Sivaganga. Sir, On behalf of the devasthanams of Perumal Koil, Sivan Koil; and Pillayar Koil, etc. in Naganathapuram and the trustees thereof V N. Venkatachaiam Chettiar and others, I hereby give you notice under the provisions of the Court of Wards Act as follows.

(3.) The notice then proceeds to set out the cause of action and the relief claimed. The only defect in the notice which is said to invalidate it is that it does not contain a proper description of the names and the places of abode of the intending plaintiffs. In particular it is said that whereas there are five plaintiffs who joined in instituting the suit, the name of one of them alone, namely, Venkatachalam Chettiar is mentioned in the notice and the names of the others have been entirely omitted; nor has the address even of Venkatachalam Chettiar been given. It is clear that if the suit is to be regarded as a suit by the trustees, the notice must be held defective as the requirements of Section 49 have not been satisfied. In the light of the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagadusa V/s. The Secretary of State for India (1927) 53 M.L.J. 81 : L.R. 54 I.A. 333 : I.L.R. 51 Bom. 725 (P.C.), full effect must be given to the language of the statute and it is not permissible to put a liberal construction upon that language or to say that it will be enough if there is a substantial compliance with the conditions of the section. The statute has laid down certain definite formalities to be observed as a preliminary to a suit against the Court of Wards and we cannot whittle down the effect of Section 49 by adopting a liberal or beneficent interpretation.