GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. TALUK BOARD OF KUMBAKONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions which have been referred to us are: 1. Is notice of action necessary under Section 156(1) of the Local Boards Act, 1884, when the suit is for an injunction?

(2.) Does the six months limitation prescribed by Section 156(3) apply to such a suit? 2. I take it that, for the purposes of our answer to the questions which have been referred to us, it is to be assumed that the suit for an injunction is on account of an act done or purporting to be done, in pursuance, or execution or intended execution of the act, or in respect of an alleged neglect or default in the execution of the act within the meaning of Section 156 of the Madras Local Boards Act (V of 1884).

(3.) As regards the first question, it was held by this Court in President of the Taluk Board, Sivaganga V/s. Narayanan 16 M. 317 that under the provisions of Section 156 of the Local Boards Act, V of 1884, as originally enacted, the section did not apply to a suit for an injunction. I think this decision was right; Section 156 as originally enacted would seem to be taken from Section 264 of the English Public Health Act, 1875 (38 and 39 Vic. C. 55) and it has been held that that enactment and similar enactments with regard to notices against Public Authorities (now superseded by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, 56 and 57 Vic. C. 61), were intended to apply to an action for damages and that notice was not necessary in the case of a suit for an injunction to restrain an immediate injury. See Flower v. Local Board of Low Leyton (1877) 5 Ch. D. 347; Attorney General V/s. Hackney Local Board (1875) L.R. 20 Eq. 626; Sellors V/s. Matlock Bath Local Board (1885) L.R. 14 Q.B. D 928; Chapman, Mossons and Co. V/s. Guardians of Auckland Union (1889) L.R. 23 Q.B.D. 294.