K SANGAPPA Vs. SUNKU SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Anantapur dated 11 July 1935 declaring that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 497 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Penukonda was duly elected President of the Bukkapatnam Panchayat Board and issuing an injunction restraining the defendant from acting as the temporary President of the said Board and from interfering with the plaintiff's right as President. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the sole ground that the oath of allegiance had been taken by the members who had assembled at the meeting for electing a President not before the President of the meeting was chosen by them, but only afterwards. It is common ground that before the actual business of the meeting, that is to say the election of the President of the Board was proceeded with, the oaths of allegiance had been taken, and the objection was only to the selection or choice of the President for the meeting itself before it proceeded to elect the President of the Board. In all other respects the findings of the trial Court were in favour of the plaintiff, namely that the defendant was not justified in altering the date of election and that in spite of such alteration the other members were entitled to meet and proceed with business on the date of the meeting originally fixed and that as a matter of fact there was a meeting of the members of the Board on the date in question when the plaintiff was elected as President. It is stated in the judgment of the learned District Judge that these findings of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant were not disputed and the only question that was decided by the lower appellate Court was whether the election was invalid on account of the fact that no oath of allegiance had been taken before the meeting chose its President for the day. This question was answered in the negative by the District Judge and he accordingly allowed the appeal.

(2.) In this second appeal besides this question another question has been sought to be raised, which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court, namely whether the temporary President, that is the defendant, had authority to alter the date of the meeting once fixed or, to put the question in different language, whether the meeting of the members of the Board actually held on 12 November 1934 in accordance with the notice issued by the temporary President, was not a valid meeting merely because the date of the meeting was subsequently altered by the temporary President. On this part of the case I am of opinion that the finding of the trial Court was right and it would appear that no argument was addressed on this point to the lower appellate Court. It does not follow that because under the law a temporary President had the power to fix the date for the meeting for the election of the President he would have necessarily the power to change or alter the date at his own pleasure or that a meeting, which is actually held in accordance with a notice issued by one who has the authority under the law to issue it, becomes invalid because the authority which issued the previous notice thinks fit to change its mind and fix another date. I am therefore of opinion that the meeting actually held was a valid meeting in spite of the change in the date of the meeting subsequently notified by the defendant.

(3.) As regards the other point it is enough for me to say that I concur in the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge though I do not agree with him that Section 35, Local Boards Act, has any bearing on the facts of the present case. The oath of allegiance has to be taken at a meeting of the Board and it is obvious that the meeting of the Board cannot be held without some one to preside over it for the purpose of that meeting and it cannot be said that the choosing of a Chairman or President for the meeting is an act which is declared to be invalid unless there is a previous taking of the oath of allegiance. The choosing of a President for a meeting cannot by itself be regarded as the act of any member as such which is contemplated in Section 5, Madras Act 2 of 1922. It cannot be said that that Act contemplated that there should be a meeting of the Board without some one to preside over it when the object of the meeting was to enable the members to take their oaths of allegiance. The finding of the lower appellate Court on this matter is in my opinion right. It therefore follows that the second appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal refused.