Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Korisetty Sivalingappa - Court Judgment |
| Property |
| Karnataka High Court |
| Nov-17-1959 |
| Second Appeal No. 603 of 1953 |
| K.S. Hegde and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ. |
| AIR1960Kant139; AIR1960Mys139; ILR1959KAR1019 |
| Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act - Sections 84; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 3 and 30 |
| Hanumanthappa and anr. |
| Korisetty Sivalingappa |
-
[s. abdul nazeer, j.] code of civil procedure, 1908 — order 23 rule 3-b -representative suit — compromise of — leave of the court - the suit in question is a representative suit which comes within the explanation(d) of order 23 rule 3-b of c.p.c. — the explanation to order 23 rule 3-b of cpc explains the meaning of the words ‘representative suit’ employed in sub-rule (1) of order 23 rule 3-b of cpc. explanation (d) of order 23 rule 3-b of cpc states that a representative suit means, any other suit in law in which the decree passed may, by virtue of the provisions of cpc or of any other law for the time being in force, bind any person who is not named as party to the suit. bombay public trust act comes within the expression ‘any other law for time being in force’. it is settled that the decision under section 50 of the act binds not only the parties to the suit but also those who are interested in the trust. the judgment operates as a judgment in rem and is not merely a judgment in personem. admittedly, the compromise has been entered into by the parties without the leave of the court. in the circumstances, the compromise entered..........had no right to file an appeal against the order of the subordinate judge, apportioning the compensation. according to sri gopivallabha iyengar, an order passed under s. 30 of the land acquisition act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. in support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in rajagopala chettiar v. hindu religious endowments board, madras, : air1934mad103 . that was a case arising under s. 84 of the madras hindu religious endowments act.but there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. the high court in india have consistently taken the view that a decision under s. 30 of the land acquisition act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. see mahalinga kudumban v. theetharappa mudaliar, air 1929 mad 223: venkata reedi v. adhinarayana, : air1929mad351 ; muthuvijaya raghunatha v. karuppiah. air 1939 mad 76 and reghunathdas harijivandas v. dist. superintendent of police, nasik. awir 1933 bom 187. the decision in rajagopala chettiar's case. : air1934mad103 , cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the privy council in mt. bhagwati v. ramkali, air 1939 pc 133. it was.....
Hegde, J.
(1) The only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, : AIR1934Mad103 . That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. The High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See Mahalinga Kudumban v. Theetharappa Mudaliar, AIR 1929 Mad 223: Venkata Reedi v. Adhinarayana, : AIR1929Mad351 ; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah. AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Reghunathdas Harijivandas v. Dist. Superintendent of Police, Nasik. AWIR 1933 Bom 187. The decision in Rajagopala Chettiar's case. : AIR1934Mad103 , cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Mt. Bhagwati v. Ramkali, AIR 1939 PC 133. It was so held in Chikkanna Chettiar v. V. S. Peruman Chettiar, AIR 1940 Mad 474(FB) which was a case arising under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Full Bench held that:
'The Subordinate Judge who is appointed under S. 3(d) of the Act to decide a dispute with regard to the allocation of compensation money does not constitute a Court of record, but admittedly he does constitute a Civil Court. Hence an appeal lies from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial government under S. 3(d) to decide a dispute referred by the Collector under S. 30 of the Act.'
The High Court in India have consistently taken the view for the last over twenty-five years that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is a 'decree'. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not brought to our notice any decision which has taken a contrary view.
(2) In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
(3) Appeal dismissed.