NARLA RAMAKRISHNAYYA Vs. MYNENI VENKATARANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastriar in S.A. No. 1379 of 1926. The original suit which gave rise to this second appeal was instituted by two members of the Myneni family for a declaration that the last holder of the office of the Village Munsif of Dhulipudy was Myneni Bhishiah alias Nagabhushanam, that the plaintiffs are the only surviving members of the last male-holder's family from whom on revision a selection should be made of the person best qualified for the office and that the appointment of the defendant (a member of the Narla family) as the permanent Village Munsif of Dhulipudy is illegal, and for some other reliefs. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try this suit, and the learned Judge of this Court was also of the same opinion. The first point raised by Mr. G. Lakshmanna, the learned advocate for the appellant, is that tne Civil Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant, it is necessary to state a few more facts. The village establishments in Guntur District were revised once in 1900 and again in 1912. The revenue village of Dhulipudy was split into two revenue villages in 1900 - Dhulipudy and Karankipalem. In 1912, those two villages were split up into three revenue villages of Dhulipudy, Karankipalem and Addankipalem. As observed by the Collector in disposing of an appeal filed before him by the present plaintiffs in a suit instituted under Madras Act III of 1895 and also by the Lower Courts in the present suit, there were a number of changes in the appointments that were made at the time of these two revisions of the village establishments which led to a lot of confusion as seen from various orders which were passed by the Revenue Authorities which are not easily reconcilable. The final appointment to the village of Dhulipudy was of the defendant - a member of the Naria family. That led to the present suit.

(2.) It is convenient at this stage to refer to some of the relevant provisions of Madras Act III of 1895. Under Section 6 of the Act, the Board of Revenue may... divide any village into two or more villages, and, thereupon, all hereditary village offices in the villages or portions of villages or village. divided shall cease to exist and new offices, which shall also be hereditary, shall be created for the new village or villages. In choosing persons to fill such new offices, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished.

(3.) Right of suit before Collector is given under Section 13 of the Act in respect of the offices for recovery of emoluments of such offices and for registry as heir; jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred under Section 21 in respect of certain matters. Section 23 deals with appeals against orders passed by the Collector under Section 6 of the Act and from decrees and orders passed under Section 13. Section 20 provides for the framing of rules not inconsistent with the Act in regard, among others, to the holding of inquiries under Section 6 and the hearing of appeals under Section 23.