Peria Pechi and Others vs Subbiah and Others

Kailasam, J.—Defendants 1 to 3 are the Appellants. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is a service holder of thoti service of

Umaikulam once in four years by rotation for one year from July-August 1958, for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 4 from

interfering with the Plaintiff''s doing his turn of the service by rotation and to enjoy the suit property for the year in which the service is done by him

and for recovery of Rs. 100 being the damages from Defendants 1 to 4 for the year 1958.

The Defendants contested the suit on the ground that Defendants 1 and 2, the daughters of Singapuli are entitled to �th share of the office.

The third Defendant is the husband of the first Defendant and the fourth Defendant is the village munsif. According to the Plaintiff, the office of the

thoti which is in dispute belonged to eight persons who are named in the 1933 register, exhibit A-l. Ayyanar is the grandfather of the Plaintiff.

Ayyanar had a brother Sankaralingam. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Sankaralingam had four sons and Sankaralingam and the four sons

relinquished their interest in favour of Ayyanar and the Plaintiff who is the grand son of Ayyanar became entitled to 1/4th right in the thoti service

inam. On the other hand, the contention of the Defendants is that Sankaralingam did not convey his rights to Ayyanar; but his rights devolved on

Singapuli whose daughters are Defendants 1 and 2. Various other contentions were raised in the Courts below. It is unnecessary to deal with all of

them.

The two contentions raised in this appeal are:

(i) that the civil Court is not competent to entertain the suit for the relief prayed for in the plaint; and

(ii) that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding the Defendants 1 and 2 who were ladies were not entitled to the service as Singapuli, their

father, died in 1930 and when the right to office fell vacant, Defendants 1 and 2 were disqualified because of their sex. In the view I am taking on

the first point, I am refraining from considering the second question.

The plaint, after setting out the claim of the Plaintiff in paragraph 6 that he is entitled to 1/4th share by virtue of his grand father''s purchase of

Sankara-lingam''s half share, proceeds in paragraph 8 to state the case of Defendants 1 to 3 and their obstruction. In paragraph 8, it is alleged that

Defendants 1 to 3 claim certain rights in the properties and were threatening to harvest the crops in the land. It was further stated that with the help

of the fourth Defendant, the village munsif, Defendants 1 and 3 prevented the Plaintiff from discharging his duties as inam holder. The plaint further

refers to the exchange of notices, the allegation of the Defendants that they are daughters of Singapuli and that they are entitled to 1/8th share as

the grand daughters of Sankaralingani. It is alleged that Defendants never did the service at any time. Defendants 1 to 3 doing the work of thoti

maniam is stated to be because of the permission given to them by the fourth Defendant. It is further alleged that Defendants 1 to 4 had illegally

removed the crops. In paragraph 9, the plaint sets forth the relief that is prayed for viz., a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to the service and

thereby to the properties belonging to the service inam and that they are entitled to be in possession for one year from 1st Adi, 1958. It also asks

for a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 4 from in any way interfering with his doing service and with the enjoyment of the properties

once in four years.

Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village-offices Act (III of 1895) bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts in certain cases. The section reads as

follows:

No Civil Court shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any rlaim to succeed to any of the offices specified in Section 3 or any

question as to the rate of amount of the emoluments of any such office....

It is not disputed that thoti inam is one of the offices specified in Section 3. The authority of the civil Court to take into consideration and decide

any claim to succeed to any of the offices or the question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments is taken away by Section 21. Section 13

contains the provision relating to suits for offices, for recovery of emoluments and for registry as heir. Section 13 is as follows:

(1) Any person may sue before the Collector for any of the villago-offices specified in Section 3 or for recovery of the emoluments of any such

office, on the ground that he is entitled under Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates'' Village Service Act, 1894,

or under Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 10 or Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 11 or Section 12 of this Act, as the case may be, to hold such

office and enjoy such emoluments ; or being a minor, may sue before the Collector to be registered as heir of the last holder of any such office.

Any person for any of the village offices specified in Section 3 or for recovery of the emoluments of any such office on one of the grounds

mentioned in the Sub-section and for holding such office and for enjoying such emoluments, may sue before the Collector.

The result of reading Sections 21 and 13 of the Aot is that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted in the matters in respect of which the

jurisdiction is conferred on the Revenue Court u/s 13 of the Act. A suit by the service holder for any of the village-offices or for recovery of

emoluments is cognizable only by the Revenue Court. When the Plaintiff alleges and relies upon the fact that the land is an emolument attached to

the office and makes that the foundation of his relief, it is only a Revenue Court that has jurisdiction. But when the cause of action and right to

possession is not dependent upon his title to the emoluments as a service holder, then Section 21 is not a bar. A suit against a trespasser or against

a lessee for possession is not barred u/s 21.

In Putta Veeranna Vs. Yellapalli Mocharamma, the test laid down by the Bench of this Court is as follows:

The test for deciding whether the Revenue or the civil Court has jurisdiction has been laid down in several oases. Where it is necessary for the

Plaintiff to allege in order to maintain his action that the land in suit is an emolument of a service inam, the jurisdiction will remain with the Revenue

Court u/s 13 of the Act. Where the Plaintiff sues on the ground of a trespass or on the ground that the land is his private property or upon the

footing of a lease that has expired, there is no need for him to rely upon the fact of the land being an emolument of a service inam.

SUBBA RAO, C.J., (as he then was of the Andhra Pradesh High Court) in Macharayya v. Ghintanna (1954) 2 M.L.J. 133, 135 following the

test laid down in Veeranna v. Mocharamma (1988) 1 M.L.J. 406, 408, summarised the test in his own words:

Is it necessary to rely upon the fact of the land being an emolument of a service inam in order to get relief in the suit ?

In this case, from the pleadings, it is abundantly clear that the palintiff has alleged and relied strongly on the fact that he is entitled to one-fourth

share in the service inam and that the lands were attached to the service inam and hence claimed title to the service as well as to the lands. He

disputes the right of the defen -dants to claim 1/8th of the office and the lands. The plaint answers the tests which would exclude the jurisdiction of

the civil Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the suit for a relief by way of an injunction does not fall u/s 13 and,

therefore, is not maintainable before the Revenue Court and hence civil Court''s jurisdiction is not barred. In support of his argument, he relied on

the proviso to Section 13 of Act III of 1895 where it is stated that a suit for a more declaratory decree is not maintainable by the Revenue Court.

He also relied on the decision of SOMAYYA J., reported in Mangala Pichivadu v. Siddavatam Mangala Muniah and Anr. (1941) 54 L.W. 32

(S.N.), where it is observed that where the suit is one for an injunction by an office holder in possession of the office and the emoluments (certain

lands) restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred. The facts do not

appear in the judgment. Further in this case the Plaintiff alleges that the Respondent is doing service illegally. Reliance was placed on Yandluri

Yellamanda v. Kunchala Ghitam-baram (1925) 50 M.L.J. 267 where it is observed that Section 21 does not take away the jurisdiction of a Court

to entertain a suit for the recovery of possession of an mam land from a trespasser, or a tenant holding over or from a co-sharer who in order to

defeat the Plaintiff sets up a title in himself and denies the title of the Plaintiff. The suit was for possession of service inam lands, not based on the

fact that the Plaintiff is the holder of an office or that the land is attached as emoluments to that office, but on the allegation that the Defendants

were tenants holding over after the expiry of the lease. There can be no dispute that on the facts, the civil Cour had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

On a discussion of the authorities, it is clear that the plaint as framed with the reliefs as prayed for, cannot be maintained in a civil Court by

virtue of Section 21 of the Hereditary Village-offices Act. On this ground, the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. There -will be no order

as to costs throughout. Leave refused.