Skip to content


T. Sivasankaram Pillai and anr. Vs. Taluk Board of Penukonda and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936Mad945
AppellantT. Sivasankaram Pillai and anr.
RespondentTaluk Board of Penukonda and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the provision for notice in that section as well as the enactment of a shorter period of limitation are coextensive except as regards suits for immoveable property. the distinction between the cases in which notice is necessary under section 225 and the cases in which notice is not necessary is too well established to require any lengthy discussion......by limitation under the special provisions of 225. the decree of the court below is set aside and the suits remanded for disposal on the merits. costs in c.r.p. no. 525 of 1933 alone, from the district board, anantapur. costs in the lower court will be provided for in the revised decree.
Judgment:
ORDER

Varadachariar, J.

1. The Revision Petitions arise out of two small cause suits filed for the recovery of two sums alleged to be due to the plaintiff-it is in substance a claim for reimbursement under an arrangement agreed to by the Taluk Board of Penukonda to pay the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in certain contemplated proceedings. The lower Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The District Munsif dismissed the suits on two preliminary grounds, both of which turn on the construction of Section 225, Local Boards Act. The provision for notice in that section as well as the enactment of a shorter period of limitation are coextensive except as regards suits for immoveable property. If the suit is not one of the kind contemplated by Section 225, the decision of the lower Court must be held to be erroneous on both the grounds viz., that of maintainability without notice and that of limitation. The distinction between the cases in which notice is necessary under Section 225 and the cases in which notice is not necessary is too well established to require any lengthy discussion. On the allegations in the plaint, the suits do not arise out of anything done by the Board in the discharge of a statutory duty as contemplated by the cases. The fact that reference is made to and reliance is placed upon a resolution said to have been passed by the Board will not convert the suit into one relating to a statutory duty, because even for contractual purposes a resolution may be necessary. The lower Court was wrong in holding that the suits were not maintainable without notice or were barred by limitation under the special provisions of 225. The decree of the Court below is set aside and the suits remanded for disposal on the merits. Costs in C.R.P. No. 525 of 1933 alone, from the District Board, Anantapur. Costs in the lower Court will be provided for in the revised decree.


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