Madras High Court
Marimuthu vs Savarimuthu And Ors. on 12 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)1MLJ480, 1999 A I H C 2378, (1999) 1 MAD LJ 480 (1999) 1 MAD LW 586, (1999) 1 MAD LW 586
ORDER S.S. Subramani, J.
1. First defendant in O.S.No. 90 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Keeranur is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 in this revision have filed the suit for the following reliefs.
3. Petitioners a member of Kuravan Community, which is a recognised scheduled caste in the State of Tamil Nadu. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, are also residents of the same village and belong to Udayar caste, a backward community. There is a dispute between petitioner's community and the community of the plaintiffs' and others in respect of a property, which is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in which they claim passage for taking clay horse. Since revision petitioner did not yield to their demand, it caused disturbance.
4. On 8.7.1997, respondents 1 and 2 abused petitioner by calling him with caste name and also caused injuries. A complaint has been lodged by the petitioner before Mathru Police Station under Crime No. 4 of 1997. Thereafter, on 11.7.1997 plaintiffs came to petitioner's residency and abused him by filthy language and also threatened him to kill along with his family members. Even petitioner's daughter was also, abused and assaulted and the same was also subjected to another complaint before the Inspector of Police. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have taken anticipatory bail. To overcome the criminal proceedings, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the above suit to declare that petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community and for a consequential injunction restraining District Collector and Tahsildar not to issue community certificate to the effect that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community. According to the petitioner such a suit itself is not maintainable and the same is barred under the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. When the revision was filed, I ordered notice of motion, and private notice was also permitted. Notice to the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lower court was also directed. Even though notice have been served to the plaintiffs, they have not cared to enter appearance and I heard the learned Government Pleader and also counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have already extracted the relevant portion of reliefs sought for in the plaint, which is one for declaration that petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community and to prohibit the Government officials from issuing community certificate to the petitioner as if he belongs to scheduled caste community.
7. A similar question came up for consideration before Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Gurusamy . That is a case where a community certificate was cancelled which was challenged in the civil court. Plaintiff in that case wanted to get a declaration that he belongs to Kattunaicken community a scheduled tribe. The declaration was granted by the trial court and the appellate court confirmed the same. Second appeal was also dismissed. The same was challenged by the State in S.L.P. before the Honourable Supreme Court, In the said judgment their Lordships held thus, The only question is whether the suit is maintainable. By operation of Section 9 of C.P.C. a suit of civil nature cognizance of which is expressly or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil court. The declaration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, with respect of lists of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in relation to a State, that a particular caste or tribe as defined in Article 366(24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment by Parliament under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited....
8. In this case, plaintiffs does not seek relief for themselves and what they claim is only a relief to declare that defendant is a member of back-ward community and revenue authorities should not issue community certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled caste. Plaintiffs did not claim right for themselves, they seek only declaration for defendant. In view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and also due to the fact that plaintiffs are not claiming relief for themselves, but only claiming relief for defendant, such a suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. In a suit, relief should be claimed for plaintiff showing cause of action. For granting relief to defendant, there cannot be any cause of action. The suit is misconceived and the plaint is struck of from the file.
9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 13672 of 1998 is closed.