SRIMATHU RAJA MUTHU VIJAYA RAGHUNATHA DORAISINGAM ALIAS GOURI VALLABHA THEVAR, ZAMINDAR OF SIVAGANGA, THROUGH HIS DEWAN ANDAUTHORISED AGENT, MR R M SUNDARAM, I C S Vs. MUTHU KRMMUTHIA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case have been stated by Varadachariar, J., in his judgment and it is needless to repeat them. The only point that has been decided is that the notice given in May 1928 by one Singa Dorai satisfies the conditions embodied in Section 49 of the Court of Wards Act. The law on the subject has been fully discussed by Varadachariar, J., and there is no need to add to his discussion of the case-law. The section of the Court of Wards Act which has to be construed is Section 49, which runs as follows: 1. No suit relating to the person or property of any ward shall be instituted in any Civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the, office of the District Collector specified in the notification under Section 19 or the Collector appointed under Section 46, as the case may be.

(2.) Such notice shall state the name and place of the abode of the intending plaintiff, the cause of action and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 2. The notice given in this case completely complies with all the provisions of this section. The person who gave the notice was one Singa Dorai, the senior proprietor of the village, the proprietors of which are the present plaintiffs. He was certainly the intending plaintiff at the time the notice was given. He was the original complainant before the Survey Officer and the respondent before the appellate Survey Officer. The notice was given because the appellate Survey Officer's decision was against Singa Dorai. It is not pretended that any one else was the intending plaintiff at the time the notice was sent. The cause of action and the relief claimed which are given in the notice are not different from the cause of action and the relief claimed in the present suit. The plaint contains a statement that the notice was delivered or left at the offices referred in the section and this delivery is not denied. It would thus follow that all the requirement of the section have been really fulfilled.

(3.) The main objection urged by the Zamindar's advocate in this appeal is that Singa Dorai who gave the notice is not the actual plaintiff in the present suit in which the plaintiffs are those who derived title from him subsequent to the issue of the notice, Singa Dorai having transferred his interest in the village in August, 1928, to certain persons who in turn transferred the same to the plaintiffs in September, 1928. In other words, the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that when after the notice is given as required by Section 49, the person who gives the notice dies or transfers his interest in the subject-matter to another, a fresh notice has to be given under Section 49. It is difficult to see how this conclusion can be said to follow necessarily from Section 49. It certainly does not follow from the letter of this law; nor can it be said that the object of this law requires such a conclusion to be drawn. A transfer of the subject-matter does not affect the object for which such notice is required to be given. I may also say that the reasons given by Varadachariar, J., in support of his conclusion appear to be sound, and that the conclusion which he has come to is one in consonance with justice and is not opposed to law. There is no reason therefore why that decision should be interfered with in appeal.