RASA GOUNDAN Vs. RAMAI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Within six months of an order of the District Collector dismissing as withdrawn an appeal preferred by the respondent before me against an order of the Collector acting under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act holding that the inam in question consisted only of the melwaram, the respondent filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the inam constituted of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. The appellants before me as defendants in the suit contended inter alia as follows in paragraph (6) of their written statement; The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Collector, Coimbatore, but did not press the appeal. Therefore, there was no judicial order by the District Collector on the appeal petition as contemplated by Section 44-B(2)(d)(i) of the said Act and the plaintiff had no reasons to be aggrieved and therefore the suit is barred by limitation since he cannot rely on the order of the District Collector. The cause of action alleged is not correct. The plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy by way of suit and is clearly out of time.

(2.) The suit was decreed in the Courts below.

(3.) The short and neat point taken for the appellants by their learned Counsel, Mr. G. Chandrasekhara Sastri, is that the plaintiff cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, and that the District Collector cannot be said to have decided the appeal, as these two words "aggrieved" and "decided" used in the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) to Sub-section (2) of Section 44-B of the Act ought to be understood. Says the learned Counsel, the plaintiff chose not to press the appeal to the District Collector which did not therefore go to a decision. That was a step which he took of his own free volition. The District Collector could not and did not therefore decide the appeal. There was no need for him in fact and in truth to go into the merits. So asks the learned Counsel, how on earth can it be said that the plaintiff is a person aggrieved when the order of which he is complaining is an order of his own solicitation procured by him on an express invitation made by himself to the District Collector not to deal with the appeal but to dismiss it ? Learned Counsel is, in my opinion, perfectly right. The meaning of the word " aggrieved " as given in the Oxford English Dictionary is "injuriously affected by the action of any one", and no one can ordinarily be allowed to complain of an act of his own doing. The word decided prima facie imports a decision on the merits, and its use in the relevant section of the relevant Act certainly excludes, at any rate, an order of the kind that we have before us.