BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26/03/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.283 of 2001 G.Venkatakrishnan .. Appellant/Appellant/ Plaintiff 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, through District Collector, Dindugal District. 2.Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindugal. 3.Canara Bank,Madurai Circle, Office,Through its General Manager. .. Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Prayer Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1998 in A.S.No.32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindugal in confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.09.1997 in O.S.No.679 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindugal. !For Appellant ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar ^For RR1 and 2 ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Government Advocate :JUDGMENT
This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
23.11.1998 in A.S.No.32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Dindugal in confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.09.1997 in O.S.No.679 of
1994 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindugal.
2. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the
plaintiff filed this second appeal on the ground that the plaintiff suit for
declaring his caste status was erroneously dismissed by both the Courts below.
3. The following substantial question of law was framed by my learned
Predecessor at the time of admitting this second appeal:
“Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue in
question in view of the Judgment reported in 2000-2-L.W.Page 495?”
4. Heard both sides.
5. My mind is redolent with the Full Bench decision of this Court in
P.Maragathamani v. General Manager(In-charge), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Trichy Complex, Tiruchirapalli-14 and others reported in 2006(1)CTC 497. An
excerpt from it would run thus:
“38. This contention also, in our view, is not tenable, for the reason
that the ratio decidendi, decided by the Supreme Court, taking into
consideration the importance of the disposal of the claims with regard to
community certificates by the Scrutiny Committee, would amount to the law
legislated by the Judiciary. Further, on the basis of judicial directions, the
Government has passed relevant orders, appointing various committees at the
District Level and the State Level. If the orders passed by the authorities at
the District level and at the State level would not satisfy the parties, then,
the said orders can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution in the
High Court, which again will be challenged under Article 136 in the Supreme
Court. Enactment, if made, would bar the civil jurisdiction expressly. But, in
this case, we are concerned with implied bar, which is inbuilt.
39. When the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, then it goes without saying
that the decree passed by the Civil Court Without Jurisdiction is a nullity.
The Supreme Court, in Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
Government of India v. Cipla Ltd, and others, 2003(7) SCC 1, held that an order,
which lacks inherent jurisdiction, would be a nullity and, thus, the procedural
law of waiver or estoppel would have no application in such a situation. The
same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in subsequent judgments Dwaraka
Prasad Agarwal (D) by L.Rs. and another v. B.D. Agarwal & Others, 2003(6) SCC
230; Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2004(3) SCC 1; and
MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., 2004(9) SCC
619. Therefore, any decree granted by the Civil Court, declaring that a person
belongs to a particular community and a mandatory injunction to grant community
certificate to that effect is a nullity and cannot be enforced, since the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as its jurisdiction is
impliedly ousted.
… … …
43.Sum up-
(1)Suit in Civil Court for declaration that a person belongs to a
particular community and for mandatory injunction, directing the authorities to
issue community certificate in pursuance of the said declaration, is not
maintainable; the decree in the said suit is a nullity and, as such, it is not
binding on the authorities.
(2) Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. The
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, 2002 (3) CTC 411, holding
that the learned single Judges’ decision that the suit is maintainable must be
regarded as per incuriam, is upheld.
(3) Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs”.
6. It is explicitly clear that a suit will not lie for the purpose of
declaring the caste status of a particular individual of this nature.
Accordingly, I could see no merit in this second appeal and accordingly, the
substantial question of law is answered.
7. In the result, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is
dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to
costs.
smn
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Dindugal.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Dindugal.