Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 under Section 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.
5. Section 195 (1) (c) says that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 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.