Skip to content


(Chavadi) Koothanainar Pillai Vs. Madappa Kone and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad49; 113Ind.Cas.60
Appellant(Chavadi) Koothanainar Pillai
RespondentMadappa Kone and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....be decided later on.2. it is urged that without any further enquiry the divisional officer added a note that commutation will take effect from fasli 1333, that is the year in which the suits were filed. seeing that in the judgment he reserved the question from what year the commutation was to begin, he was not justified without further enquiry and without notice to the parties to add a note to his judgment to the effect that commutation will take effect from fasli 1333. it is unfortunate that the respondents do not appear, but the petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was passed on 9th january 1926 without the knowledge and behind the back of the petitioner that commutation will take effect from fasli 1333. in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, i must.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. In these petitions, the question is, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer of Koilpatti was justified in adding a note to his judgment more than two months after it was delivered. The Divisional Officer delivered his judgment on 23rd November 1925 allowing commutation subject to findings on certain issues and added.

The rent due on the Fasli from which it is due will be decided later on.

2. It is urged that without any further enquiry the Divisional Officer added a note that commutation will take effect from Fasli 1333, that is the year in which the suits were filed. Seeing that in the judgment he reserved the question from what year the commutation was to begin, he was not justified without further enquiry and without notice to the parties to add a note to his judgment to the effect that commutation will take effect from Fasli 1333. It is unfortunate that the respondents do not appear, but the petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was passed on 9th January 1926 without the knowledge and behind the back of the petitioner that commutation will take effect from Fasli 1333. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must accept as true the statement in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Under Section 40, Estates Land Act, the Collector shall decide whether commutation shall be allowed and if he allows commutation, shall pass a decree declaring the sum to be paid as money rent in lieu of rent in kind or otherwise and the time from which the commutation is to take effect. The determination as to the time from which the commutation is to take effect is a judicial decision and no Court is justified in adding a note to a judgment as regards an important question which has to be decided in the presence of the parties and after taking such evidence as they may adduce. In any case, to pass a decision as regards time from which commutation is to take effect without notice to the parties is certainly illegal. The Divisional Officer acted with material irregularity in deciding the point as to when commutation was to take effect without giving notice to the parties. I therefore set aside the so-called note to his judgment and direct him to decide this point after giving notice to the parties. There will be no order as to costs on these petitions.

3. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 243 and 244 of 1926. These petitions are against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Koilpatti staying proceedings in certain suits. The main reason for his staying the proceedings was that commutation has been allowed with effect from Fasli 1333. This order as to when commutation was to begin was an illegal order for the reasons given in the connected petitions. The stay order passed upon the misapprehension that there was a valid order as to when the commutation was to begin must, therefore, be held to be an improper order. I set aside the order staying the suits mentioned in the order. It is open to the Divisional Officer on a proper application being made and for proper grounds to stay the suits mentioned in his order. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 245 of 1926.

4. This is withdrawn. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //