Ramaswami Naidu vs Chinnaswami Naidu

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—This is an appeal under Clause 15. of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Happell, J. The learned

Judge has dealt with the facts and the law in detail and we are in full agreement with his decision.

The appellant instituted a suit on a promissory note in the Panchayat Court of Kadayampatti. The suit was dismissed because the parties did not

appear. After the dismissal of the suit the defendant filed a petition in the Court of the District Munsiff of Sankari asking that a complaint should be

made by the District Munsiff to a Criminal Court on the. ground that the endorsements on the promissory note were forgeries. The District Munsiff

held that he had no jurisdiction to grant the petition and consequently dismissed it. The defendant then appealed to the District Court and in

addition filed a petition asking the District Court itself to make the complaint. The District Judge dismissed both the appeal and the petition. He was

right in dismissing the appeal but erred in dismissing the petition. The District Judge had omitted to notice the amendment in Section 77 of the

Madras Village Courts Act. The defendant appealed to this Court against the order of the District Judge on the petition. Happell, J., allowed the

appeal and directed that the case should be remanded to the District Court for disposal on the merits. The appeal is from that order.

There is no appeal against a decision of a Village Court. Section 73 of the Act empowers the District Munsiff to set aside a decree or order

passed by a Village Court if he is satisfied that there has been corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Court or that it has

exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or that it has otherwise acted illegally or with material irregularity, or that the decree or order is

clearly unjust. This section expressly states that except as provided in it every decree or order of a Village Court shall be final. This section has

been inserted in the Act in order that a person aggrieved by the improper action of a Village Court may have a remedy but it is not a remedy by

appeal. It is a remedy by a petition to the District Munsiff who is empowered to deal with such a situation.

Section 77 of the Act as amended by the Madras Village Courts (Amendment) Act, 1936, states that the provisions of Sections 403, 476, 476-

A and 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, shall apply to a Village Court. Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, reads thus:

The power conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts by Section 476, Sub-section (1), may be exercised, in respect of any offence

referred to therein and alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any such Court, by the Court to which such former

Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195, Sub-section (3), in any case in which such former Court has neither made a complaint u/s

476 in respect of such offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint; and, where the superior Court makes such complaint,

the provisions of Section 476 shall apply accordingly.

Section 195 (1) (c) says that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence described in Section 463 or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or

Section 476, Indian Penal Code, when the offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding in a Court in respect of a

document produced or given in evidence, except on the complaint in writing of the Court, or of some other Court to which the Court is

subordinate. Sub-section (2) states that in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) the term "" Court"" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court.

Sub-section (3) says,

For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable

decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in 1 he case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court

having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate.

As we have already pointed out, no appeal lies from an order or decree passed by a Village Court. Therefore this case falls within the latter

portion of Sub-section (3) of Section 195, and the Court which has jurisdiction is the District Court. It is not to be doubted that in the

circumstances the petition lay to the District Court and Happell, J., was right in directing that the petition should be remanded to the District Judge

for disposal on its merits. The appeal fails and will be dismissed with costs.