Ottakara Samban vs Palmuthiah Kudumban And Ors. on 16 February, 1971
Therefore, Section 21 will apply only when it involves an investigation into a claim to succeed to the office, but can have no application whatever, when a plaintiff comes to the Court to protect the office which he is holding under an order of appointment already made, not on the basis of any hereditary right. The result of this will be that Sections 13 and 21 of Madras Act III of 1895 will have to be read together and Section 21 bars only such a such suit as will fall within the scope of Section 13 of the Act. Otherwise, it will lead to the anomalous result that Section 21 prevents the institution of suits in a civil Court without providing for an adequate remedy for the aggrieved party. The justification for Section 21 is that the party whose suits are barred by that Section has got an alternative remedy of filing a suit under Section 13 and it is because of that remedy being available, the right of moving the civil Court is barred. Hence, it is the combined operation of Sections 13 and 21 that will determine whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred or not. The same view has been taken in Thangutoori Kodandaramayya v. Tkangutoori Ramalingayya and Anr. (1970) 12 LI.W. 663 and Ramaswami Iyer v. Thandavam Pillai and Ors. .