Skip to content


The President of the District Board of South Canara Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Bhatta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Mad689; 74Ind.Cas.223
AppellantThe President of the District Board of South Canara
RespondentK. Gopalakrishna Bhatta
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, articles 1, 3, 19 - tolls (army) act (ii of 1901), section 6--suit for damages caused by illegal order of president of district board, nature of--suit, whether cognizable by small cause court--suit wrongly brought against president--interference in revision--civil procedure code (act v of 1908) - .....point succeeds and that this second appeal does not lie and must be dismissed with costs.civil revision petition no. 2 of 1921.schwabe, c.j.4. the civil revision petition is on the same matter just disposed of--(second appeal no. 73 of 1921). it is suggested that the court that had heard the case had no jurisdiction by reason of section 6 of the tolls (army) act ii of 1901. by that section provisions are made for compensation to certain persons who sustain loss by reason of the act. it is argued that loss had been sustained by the present respondent by reason of that act. it is not at all so. even if it were so, that section does not, in my judgment, exclude the jurisdiction of the small cause court to hear cases such as this.5. it is further suggested that this action did not.....
Judgment:

2. The District Munsif and on appeal the Subordinate Judge so found, and awarded him damages, for Rs. 214. No second appeal lies against that decision the amount being under Rs. 500 unless this is one of the suits set cut in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887. The Article of the Schedule relied on is Article 19 'a suit for a declaratory decree not being a suit instituted under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code.' I agree that if the case is really a case for a declaration, the Court would be entitled to hold that the Small Cause Court's jurisdiction was excluded. If the case was really a case for damages, as in our judgment this was, the Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction though in arriving at its decision, it would have to come to a conclusion, as to whether this prohibition was rightly or wrongly imposed. The other Articles relied upon are Articles 1 and 3 which except from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court suits concerning acts and orders purporting to be done by the Governor General in Council or by a Local Government or by a Member of Council and suits concerning acts and orders purporting to be done by any other officer of the Government in his official capacity. If the President of the District Board is an officer of the Government with the meaning of these Articles, this suit would be excepted. But in our judgment he is not. Local Boards and Corporations are what may be called quasi-Government bodies but by the very scheme of the Acts under which they are created they are not servants of the Government. Their representatives in some cases are nominated but generally elected by the people and they have their official of capacity as such and not as officials of the Government. It is true that they are under Government in the sense that under the Statute they have to account to the Government and are under certain disciplinary powers of the Government. The Government has a duty cast upon it to see that these ministerial bodies carry out their functions lawfully. But in our judgment none of the officials of these Municipalities and District Boards are officers of the Government coming within Articles land 3.

3. It follows that this preliminary point succeeds and that this second appeal does not lie and must be dismissed with costs.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2 OF 1921.

Schwabe, C.J.

4. The Civil Revision Petition is on the same matter just disposed of--(Second Appeal No. 73 of 1921). It is suggested that the Court that had heard the case had no jurisdiction by reason of Section 6 of the Tolls (Army) Act II of 1901. By that section provisions are made for compensation to certain persons who sustain loss by reason of the Act. It is argued that loss had been sustained by the present respondent by reason of that Act. It is not at all so. Even if it were so, that section does not, in my judgment, exclude the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to hear cases such as this.

5. It is further suggested that this action did not lie because it was against the President and not against the District Board itself. That is not a question, as I understand it, going to the jurisdiction and I see no ground for interfering in this case on revision.

6. This Civil Revision Petition will be dismissed. There wilt be no costs.

Odgers, J.

7. I agree


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