MANUBOLU RANGAREDDI Vs. MARAMREDDI DASARADHARAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gudur for a declaration that he is the rightful holder of the office of headman either of the village of Gudur East or of Gudur West and that he is entitled to be appointed to one of these offices. These villages originally formed one village; but were converted into two in 1918. Before the division took place Gudur consisted of Gudur proper and five hamlets, namely, Vemulapalem, Veerareddi-pallee, Purittipalkm, Puthipallam and Divipalem. The headman of Gudur had jurisdiction over Gudur itself and the hamlets of Vemulapalem and Veerareddipallee, but there was an assistant headman appointed in respect of Purittipallam, Puthipallam and Divipalem. In 1908, the first respondent's father was appointed headman of Gudur, Vemulapalem and Veerareddipallee, and held this office until 1912, when he resigned. The first respondent's name was then registered with the Collector with a view to the first respondent being appointed in his father's place on coming of age and the appellant's father was appointed to discharge the duties of the office in the meantime. In 1905, the second respondent's father was appointed headman with jurisdiction over Puthipallam, Purittipallam, and Divipalem. This was the position in 1918 when Gudur and the adjoining hamlets were formed into two villages and called Gudur East and Gudur West respectively. When this happened the second respondent's father was appointed headman of Gudur East and the appellant's father headman of Gudur West. The second respondent was the headman of Gudur East and the appellant was the headman of Gudur West at the time of the suit. The District Munsiff held that the first respondent had the right to hold the office of headman of Gudur West and therefore was entitled to be recognised in the place of the appellant. A declaration to this effect was accordingly granted. On appeal to the District Court of Nellore it was held that the declaration should merely be that the appointment of the appellant is illegal and that the first respondent's family has a right to claim that the selection should be from the family.

(2.) The appellant contends that the first respondent is not entitled to any declaration and that the suit should be dismissed for the following reasons: - (1) the failure of the Revenue authorities to appoint the first respondent headman of one of the two villages did not give rise to a cause of action; (2) if the failure did constitute a cause of action, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter; and (3) the first respondent was rightly passed over.

(3.) Before discussing the questions involved in the appeal it is necessary to examine the relevant sections in the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895. Section 6 gives the Board of Revenue power to group or divide villages and provides that when this takes place the existing offices 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 best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished. By the Madras Village Offices Amendment Act of 1930, Sub-section 3 was added. This sub-section reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), no person shall be deemed to be ineligible for selection under Sub-section (1) or retention under Sub-section (2) by reason only of his being a minor. If a minor is selected under Sub-section (1) or retained under Sub-section (2), he shall be registered as the holder of the office and thereafter the procedure laid down in Sub-section (S) of Section 10 shall be adopted.