Skip to content


Sakkaraiyappa Pillai Vs. Samusukani Rowther and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad1192; 110Ind.Cas.389
AppellantSakkaraiyappa Pillai
RespondentSamusukani Rowther and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....at the time of the revision of the village establishment and that his name was sent up by the landholder and the divisional officer appointed him as triune officer and therefore the appointment is good. he relied upon his appointment as ambalam, but, from the records, it appears that he was appointed by the landholder and there was do office of ambalam in the village before his appointment. but it appears from ex. g that that the appellant was the village munsif at the time. it is contended by mr. marthandam pillai for the appellant that, inasmuch as he was the village munsif the landholder was justified in sending up his name for the new office that was 'created. if the appellant was the holder of one of the village offices at the time of the revision, his appointment by the.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. The appellant was appointed Triune Officer by the Divisional Officer of Koilpatti on 4th June 1918. Respondent 1 has brought this suit for a declaration that the appointment is invalid and that he is the proper person to hold the office of the Triune Officer. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree in favour of respondent 1.

2. The first contention of the appellant is that he was Ambalam at the time of the revision of the village establishment and that his name was sent up by the landholder and the Divisional Officer appointed him as Triune Officer and therefore the appointment is good. He relied upon his appointment as Ambalam, but, from the records, it appears that he was appointed by the landholder and there was do office of Ambalam in the village before his appointment. But it appears from Ex. G that that the appellant was the Village Munsif at the time. It is contended by Mr. Marthandam Pillai for the appellant that, inasmuch as he was the Village Munsif the landholder was justified in sending up his name for the new office that was 'created. If the appellant was the holder of one of the village offices at the time of the revision, his appointment by the Divisional Officer would be perfectly valid, but as the matter has not been properly considered by the lower Courts, I would call for a finding on the following issue.

Was the appellant the holder of the office of Village Munsif in his own right at the time of the revision and at the time when Ex. G was sent up by the landholder.

3. It is contended for the appellant that respondent 1 was not the holder of any of the village offices at the time of the revision. The Subordinate Judge's judgment is not quite clear as to whether respondent 1 was the holder of an office at the time of the revision. The lower Court will also send up a finding on the question whether respondent 1 was the holder of any village office at the time of revision and at the time when Ex. G was sent up.


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