KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU Vs. AKKULAMMAL AVERGAL, ZEMINDARINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was for a declaration that the appointment of the 3rd defendant to the office of headman of the new village of Muthalapuram, created by the amalgamation of two old villages, was illegal and that, therefore, the plaintiff s appointment by the Divisional Officer affirmed by the District Collector conferred the office upon the plaintiff. He also sued for recovery of the arrears of emoluments received wrongly by the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant among other pleas contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction by the provisions of Section 21 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act, Madras Act III of 1895, to entertain such a suit. The lower Courts overruled this plea as to jurisdiction, but on the marits dismissed the plaintiff s suit.

(2.) I shall first deal with the question of jurisdiction. Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895 provides: "No Civil Court shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any claim to succeed to any of the offices specified in Section 3 or any question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office or, except as provided in proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 13, any claim to recover the emoluments of any such office." So far as the suit relates to the recovery of emoluments, it is prima facie barred by Section 21, unless the claim to those emoluments is excepted by proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 13. But the proviso saves the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only as regards recovery of find forming the emoluments of the office, and there is no prayer in the plaint for the recovery of any land as emoluments. So far, therefore, as the claim to emoluments is concerned, I think the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction, and the lower Courts ought to have dismissed the suit so far as it relates to the claim for emoluments.

(3.) Then coming to the suit so far as it relates to the two declarations (amalgamated into one in the plaint), namely, to the declaration 5 Ind. Cas. 137 : 33 M. 208 : 7 M.L.T. 181 : 20 M.L.J. 91 that the appointment by the Board of Revenue of the 3rd defendant is illegal, and to the declaration (2) that the plaintiff is the legally entitled headman of the new village, I think Section 21 does not apply to the claim for these two declarations. It has been held in Mavoulu Seetharam Naidu v. Doddi Rami Naidu 5 Ind. Cas. 137 : 33 M. 208 : 7 M.L.T. 181 : 20 M.L.J. 91 that Section 21 should be read along with Section 13 and that a suit in the Civil Court H barred only where the relief claimed is such that the plaintiff could maintain a suit there for before the Collector under Section 13. Under Section 13 a suit before the Collector can be brought only on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to the village office of certain specified grounds. Tie claim in the present suit is not covered by those grounds and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring any suit for these declaratory reliefs before the Collector, and hence Section 21 does not bar the maintainability of the present suit in the Civil Court. On another narrower ground also, Section 21 does not apply to the present suit, because Section 21 prohibits the Civil Court from taking into consideration or deciding any claim to succeed to particular offices (which include the office now in dispute), but not any claim to be, appointed in the first instance to any of those offices. I, therefore, agree with the lower Courts on the question of jurisdiction so far as the declaratory reliefs are concerned.