(1.) This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Court of Ramnad, where it reversed the decision of the trial Court on the sixth issue in the case. That issue was in the following terms: Has notice of suit been given to the first defendant as required by law?
(2.) The only point for determination now is whether the decision of the lower appellate Court on that issue is not correct.
(3.) The question arises in connection with a suit filed by the members of a Nattukottai Chetty family, seeking to set aside the decision of the appellate survey authority in a boundary dispute under the Survey and Boundaries Act. The plaintiffs are at present the proprietors of a jivitham village in the Sivaganga Zamindari known as Kilayur and the dispute related to the boundary between that village and the adjoining Ayan village of Elayangudi belonging to the Sivaganga estate. At the time of the institution of this suit, the Sivaganga estate was under the management of the Court of Wards; the Zamindar was accordingly impleaded as the first defendant, represented by the Estate Collector. The issue now under consideration was raised in view of the terms of Section 49 of the Madras Court of Wards Act which prescribes a two months notice as a condition precedent to the institution of a suit relating to the person or property of any ward. The second clause of that section provides that: Such notice shall state the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, the cause of action and the relief which he claims.