AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 368 wordsJackson, J.—Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif, Sathur, in O.P. No. 24 of 1924, declining to act u/s 73, Madras Act
I of 1889. A District Munsif has the widest discretion under this section and, even if facts are established bringing the case within one of the three
categories which may warrant revision as set forth in the section, he may still exercise his discretion whether he will interfere. Therefore, it can only
be in very rare and exceptional cases that the revisional powers of this Court will be attracted by any proceedings of a District Munsif u/s 73. The
petitioner would have been on stronger ground if he had moved this Court to revise the judgment of the Panchayat Court itself, but in a petition
confined to the decision of the Munsif, it cannot be said that he failed to exercise jurisdiction for he heard arguments from both sides and it cannot
be said that he ought of necessity to have set aside the decree, because he has full discretion in the matter. Nor in a revisional proceeding of this
sort, can it be said that to state that he sees no sufficient cause to disturb the decree of the Lower Court, is to write an inadequate order.
Two grounds are urged which would be more germane to a petition against the original decree. Firstly, that the Panchayat Court heard no
evidence. This is inferred from the record. "" Witnesses examined for the plaintiff nil, "" but it seems probable that the plaintiff himself was examined
and there is no suggestion to the contrary in the present petition.
Secondly, that a party cannot sue under Madras Act I of 1899, for the value of damaged crops, inasmuch as it is not a claim for the value of
personal property as contemplated by Section 13. Personal property is not defined in the Act and presumably, it means moveable property and
moveable property as defined by the Transfer of Property Act includes growing crops. If the cause of action is the destruction of a growing-crop,
a party may sue for its value in the village Court.
The petition is dismissed with costs.
