Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in168Ind.Cas.478
AppellantT. Sivasankaram Pillai and anr.
RespondentTaluk Board of Penukonda
Excerpt:
madras local boards act (xiv of 1920), section 225 - suit based on contract against local board, whether requires notice and is governed by the special period of limitation--resolution of board, effect of. - .....under the special provisions of section 225. the decrees of the court below are 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:

Varadachariar, J.

1. These revision petitions arise out of two small cause suits tiled for the recovery of two sums alleged to be clue to the plaintiffs--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 of the Local Boards Act. The provision for notice in that section as well as the enactment of a shorter period of limitation are co-extensive except as regards suits for immovable 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.

2. 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 was 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.

3. 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 Section 225. The decrees of the Court below are 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 //