Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 192 (MAD)

Pandia Naicker v. Sattaiappan Chettiar

1978-03-07

S.NAINAR SUNDARAM

body1978
ORDER.-These two revisions are directed against the orders passed by the District Munsif, Tenkasi on petitions presented before him under section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Village Courts Act (I of 1889), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent in these revisions is the plaintiff in the suits instituted by him before the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi. C.S. No. 49 of 1973 was filed by him against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 168 of 1975 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 199.70, alleging that the petitioner owed the said amount in connection with rice business. The suit on the file of the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi, was posted for hearing on 12th November, 1973 and again on 26th November, 1973 and was once again posted to 17th December, 1973. On that date, the petitioner herein, who is the defendant in that suit, did not appear before the Village Munsif’s Court. Hence the Village Munsif’s Court set him ex parte and passed the decree in favour of the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in that suit. The petitioner herein filed O.P. No. 6 of 1974 before the District Munsif, Tenkasi, under section 73 of the Act praying to set aside the decree dated 17th December, 1973 in O.S. No. 49 of 1973 on the file of the Village Munsif’s Court Puliyankudi. 2. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 5 of 1973 on the file of the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 127 against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 169 of 1975. It is seen from the records that the suit was posted to 3rd September, 1973 and on that date, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 169 of 1975, the defendant in that suit, was absent. The records would go to show that on 3rd September, 1973, the father of the defendant (petitioner herein) appeared in Court on behalf of the defendant and prayed for time. Then the suit was posted to 10th September, 1973 and on that date no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and the defendant himself was absent. The Village Munsif’s Court set the defendant ex parte and passed an ex parte decree on 10th September, 1973. Then the suit was posted to 10th September, 1973 and on that date no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and the defendant himself was absent. The Village Munsif’s Court set the defendant ex parte and passed an ex parte decree on 10th September, 1973. The defendant filed O.P. No. 28 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, under section 73 of the Act praying to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 10th September, 1973 in C.S. No. 5 of 1973 on the file of the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi. 3. There were two more petitions under section 73 of the Act, preferred by other parties to set aside the decrees passed in other suits. All these petitions under section 73 of the Act were considered by the District Munsif, Tenkasi, and he has disposed them of by a common judgment dated 3rd July, 1974 and the District Munsif, Tenkasi has dismissed the petitions with costs. C.R.P. No. 168 of 1975 is directed against the orders of the District Munsif, Tenkasi in O.P. No. 6 of 1974 and C.R.P. No. 169 of 1975 is directed against the orders of the District Munsif, Tenkasi in O.P. No. 28 of 1973. 4. Mr. T. R. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner put forth two contentions seeking interference in revision by this Court. The first contention of the learned counsel touches the jurisdiction of the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi. The submissions of the learned counsel on this aspect are (i) that the Village Munsif of Puliankudi has not been appointed to function as a Village Court under section 7 of the Act, by the Collector; (ii) that the Village Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suits of the value not exceeding Rs. SO only and the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs. SO only and the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs. 200 introduced by the Tamil Nadu Village Courts (Amendment) Act (XXII of 1961) has not come into effect for the reason the Amendment Act XXII of 1961 has not been published in the Gazette and the date of coming into force of the Act has also not been gazetted; (iii) that the Village Courts were abolished by virtue of the provisions of the Madras Village Panchayat Act (X of 1960), and in spite of the revival of the village Courts by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (XXXV of 1968), the Village Munsif of Puliyankudi hos not been appointed afresh by the Collector to function as a Village Court within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. 5. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel is that the decrees passed in the suits concerned by the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi, do not conform to the requirements of section 46 of the Act, in that the reasons for the decisions have not been given in them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these questions have not been properly appreciated and considered by the District Munsif, Tenkasi. 6. In my opinion, these revisions have got to be allowed on a short ground on the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the question of jurisdiction which would require investigation of certain factual materials. Section 46 of the Act lays down as to what should be the contents of a decree passed by a Village Court. It would be useful to extract the section, which is as ‘follows: "The decree shall contain the number of the suit, the names of the parties, the particulars of the claim, the names of the witnesses examined, the titles of the exhibits read, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. It shall specify the sum of money adjudged, the movable property to be delivered, the sum to be paid in default of delivery, and the amount of costs and by what parties and in what proportions such costs shall be paid. The decree shall be dated on the day on which it is passed, and signed by the village munsif. It shall specify the sum of money adjudged, the movable property to be delivered, the sum to be paid in default of delivery, and the amount of costs and by what parties and in what proportions such costs shall be paid. The decree shall be dated on the day on which it is passed, and signed by the village munsif. When the suit has been heard by a panchayat Court, the decree shall be signed by the members of such panchayat Court concurring therewith. A copy of the decree shall then be delivered to each party in the prescribed manner." 7. I have perused the decrees about which we are concerned in the present revisions and I find that they do not satisfy the requirements of section 46 of the Act. No reason for the decision in either of the cases has been given by the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi. The requirements of section 46 of the Act will be satisfied only if the reasons for the decision by the Village Court are set out in the decree and it would not be due compliance with section 46 of the Act if merely a decree is passed, in the sense the decision adumbrates only the reliefs granted. As to why the reasons for a decision must be given by the Village Munsif’s Court is evident if we remember that such decrees of the Village Court are liable to be revised by the District Munsif under section 73 of the Act and the District Munsif, exercising revision, will have to assess the materials to find out whether such decrees could be revised for any one or all of the grounds enumerated in section 73 of the Act. Unless the reasons for the decision are set out, it is not possible for the Court exercising powers under section 73 of the Act to assess the case under that provision. Section 46 of the Act does not draw a distinction between decrees passed ex parte and decrees passed on contest. Raghavan, J., in Rajamanicka Mudaliar v. Vadivedu Mudaliar 1 had occasion to consider the scope of section ‘46 of the Act and observed as follows: "It is no doubt true that the members of the Panchayat need not give elaborate reasons in support of their conclusion, but there must be some indication that they applied their minds to the contentions of the parties. The statement in the decree, that the parties were examined, cannot be said to comply with the requirements of section 46. ........If section 46 had omitted to state the words "and the reason for such decision", there will be no scope for any argument. But by the insertion of those words in section 46, the requirements of a judgment are incorporated in section 46, as it were and some material indicating the reasons for the decision should also be stated as forming part of the decree of the Village Court as required by section 46." 8. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge and adopting the same I find that these revisions have got to be allowed on the ground that the decree passed by the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi, do not conform to the requirements of section 46 of the Act. There is substance in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this question has not been appreciated by the Court below in the proper light and the correct principles have not been applied. Hence these revisions are allowed and the respective suits are remitted back to the Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioners herein, the defendants in the suits, will be given an opportunity to put forth their defence including that relating to the aspect of jurisdiction. The Village Munsif’s Court, Puliyankudi, will consider the objections put forth by the defendants in the suits concerned and decide the cases on merits. There will be no order as to costs in these revisions.