CHANDRU CHOWDARY BEING MINOR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE
LAWS(APH)-1958-10-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
October 10,1958
CHANDRU CHOWDARY BEING MINOR BY GUARDIAN FATHER RAMAMURTHY
Appellant
VERSUS
BOARD OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, STATE OF MADRAS NOW A.P., HYDERABAD
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
VENKATA JAGANNADHA V. VEERABHADRAYYA [REFERRED TO]VENKATESWARA RAO V. MARE GOWD [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN NAMBUDRIPAD V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO VS. NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO [REFERRED TO]
R Prabhakara Rao a minor VS. District Collector Nellore [REFERRED TO]
KANTETI SASTRULU VS. MADUPALLI VENKATESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDURUNI PURUSHOTHAM VS. RAMACHANDURUNI VENKATAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PASALA RAMA RAO BEING VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
K NAGARATHNAMMAL VS. S IBRAHIM SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
ANANT BHIKKAPPA PATIL, MINOR, BY NEXT FRIEND GANGABAI KOM BHIKKAPPA VS. SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA PATIL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
B HHONNALIGE GOWDA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1963-12-4] [REFERRED TO]SUMPURNANAND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-190] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Chandra Reddy, J. -
(1.)This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for records from the Board of Revenue in L. Dis. No. 5422-52 dated 6-12-1952 and to quash the proceedings of the Board or for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board of Revenue to hear the parties and dispose of the case according to law.
(2.)The office of the village Munsif of Macha varam, East Godavari District, was last held by one Venkanna. He died on 30-5-1948. The petitioner, who is the nephew of the said Venkanna, was registered as a minor under Section 10 of the Madras Hereditary Villages Offices Act (III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 11-12-1948. Shortly thereafter, i. e., on 3-3-1949, the widow of Venkanna adopted the respondent. The respondent, as the adopted son of Venkanna, instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Act for registering his name as the next heir to the office after setting aside the registry already made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his title to the cilice was superior to that of the petitioner. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Collector, Rajamundry, which was confirmed by the Collector, East Godavari District. The matter was taken in second appeal to the Board of Revenue, but unsuccessfully. It is to quash the order of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)The point urged in support of this petition is that when once the petitioner was registered under Section 10 of the Act, the subsequent adoption cannot have the effect of divesting him of the office. To substantiate this, reliance is placed on the Boards Standing Order 148 and also certain observations made by Govinda Menon J., in Rama Rao v. Board of Revenue, 1953 Mad WN 795: (AIR 1954 Mad 483). On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent is that by reason of the adoption, though posthumous the respondent has acquired a right superior to that of the registered holder and is, therefore, entitled to be registered in preference to the petitioner.
(2.)The office of the village Munsif of Macha varam, East Godavari District, was last held by one Venkanna. He died on 30-5-1948. The petitioner, who is the nephew of the said Venkanna, was registered as a minor under Section 10 of the Madras Hereditary Villages Offices Act (III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 11-12-1948. Shortly thereafter, i. e., on 3-3-1949, the widow of Venkanna adopted the respondent. The respondent, as the adopted son of Venkanna, instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Act for registering his name as the next heir to the office after setting aside the registry already made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his title to the cilice was superior to that of the petitioner. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Collector, Rajamundry, which was confirmed by the Collector, East Godavari District. The matter was taken in second appeal to the Board of Revenue, but unsuccessfully. It is to quash the order of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)The point urged in support of this petition is that when once the petitioner was registered under Section 10 of the Act, the subsequent adoption cannot have the effect of divesting him of the office. To substantiate this, reliance is placed on the Boards Standing Order 148 and also certain observations made by Govinda Menon J., in Rama Rao v. Board of Revenue, 1953 Mad WN 795: (AIR 1954 Mad 483). On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent is that by reason of the adoption, though posthumous the respondent has acquired a right superior to that of the registered holder and is, therefore, entitled to be registered in preference to the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.