Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus V.PRABHU DOSS

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The State of Tamil Nadu v. V.Prabhu Doss - S.A.No.150 of 1997 [2007] RD-TN 1749 (4 June 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 04/06/2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

S.A.No.150 of 1997

and

C.M.P.No.1814 of 1997

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

represented by

its District Collector,

Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.

2.The Tahsildar, Shencottah.

3.The Revenue Inspector,

Shencottah.

4.The Village Administrative Officer,

Kargudi.

.. Appellants Defendants Vs

V.Prabhu Doss .. Respondent Plaintiff Prayer

Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1996 in A.S.No.68 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1995 made in O.S.No.66 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Shengottah.

For Appellants : Mr.D.Gandhi Rajan,

Government Advocate.

For Respondent : No representation.

:JUDGMENT



This second appeal is focussed as against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below vide judgment dated 09.10.1996 in A.S.No.68 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1995 made in O.S.No.66 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Shengottah, in giving a finding by declaring the Scheduled Caste status of the plaintiff.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with those judgments, this second appeal has been filed on the main ground that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain such suits for declaring the caste status of an individual.

3. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit can be entertained by the civil Court?"

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellants. The learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that the judgments of both the Courts below are contrary to the following decisions: (i) P.Maragathamani v. General Manager (In-charge), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Others reported in 2006-4-L.W.1041. (ii) Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241. (iii) State of T.N and others v. A.Gurusamy reported in (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 542.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions would submit that both the Courts below decided the matter without considering the ratiocination and the ratio decidendi contemplated in those decisions. He would also refer to the following Government Orders of Tamil Nadu Government:

"1. chpik ,ay; nky;KiwaPL vz;.5854/94 (1994) v];.v];.rp.241 y; ,e;jpa cr;r ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[ ehs; 02.09.1994.

2. Kjd;ik Mizah; kw;Wk; tUtha; eph;thf Mizahpd; fojk; v];.vy;.o];.88750/93 (fpa) ehs;.04.10.1996.

3. Mjp jpuhtplh; kw;Wk; gHq;Foapdh; ey (Mjpe.2) Jiw - murhiz (2o) vz;.18 ehs;;.01.04.1997."

7. The quint essence of the aforesaid decisions is to the effect that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suits of this nature so as to declare the caste status of an individual. The Government Order emerged consequent upon those decisions only.

8. As such, the perusal of the aforesaid decisions and Government Orders, would make it crystal clear that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to decide on the Scheduled Caste status of the plaintiff.

9. Hence, no more elaboration in this regard is required. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Shengottah. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1814 of 1997 is also closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.

To

1. The Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.

2. The District Munsif, Shengottah.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.