The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1997 made in A.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.1994 made in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.
2. In the above second appeal, the defendants in the suit are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti against the defendant to pass a decree for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff belongs to Katunayakkan community denotified as Schedule Tribes and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue community certificate to the plaintiff as Katunayakkan community.
4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
According to the plaintiff, he is residing at Puliyur Village and belongs to Katunayakkan community notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu as Scheduled Tribe. The plaintiff has studied education upto 8th Standard and in all his school records, the community of the plaintiff has been noted as Katunayakkan. According to the plaintiff, his relatives, who were living in Thirukovilur, Panruti Taluk, belong to Katunayakkan community and have obtained their community certificates from the concerned Tahsildar. The plaintiff is in need of his community certificate to be produced before his employer so as get benefits such as promotion benefits, better service benefits, etc. According to the plaintiff, he applied to Sub-collector of Cuddalore for the community certificate on 14.02.1992. The said application was rejected. According to the plaintiff, the Sub Collector, Cuddalore have not made any enquiry with regard to the issuance of the community certificate. According to the plaintiff, the rejection of the application is against the principle of natural justice. Again the plaintiff issued statutory notice calling upon the Sub Collector, Cuddalore to issue Community Certificate. But the said application was also rejected by the Sub Collector on 10.09.1992. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the above suit.
5. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:-
According to the defendants, they are not the competent authorities for issuing Katunayakkan Community certificate and only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore is the competent authority to issue community certificate. According to the defendants, the second defendant has confidentially enquired about the community of the plaintiff and found that the applicant belongs to Kuravar community, which is Schedule Caste community and also reported the matter to the Sub Collector. On that basis, the Sub Collector rejected the application. According to the defendants, the intention of the plaintiff is to get a false community certificate from the competent authority. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined three witnesses and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, decreed the suit as prayed for.
7. Aggrieved over the judgment and degree of the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.NO.74 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti. The lower appellate court also after taking into consideration the materials available on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal
8. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the courts below, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.
9. Heard Mr.R. Muthaian, learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the appellants and Mr.R. Yashad Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
10. At the time of admission of above Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law arose for consideration.
"i). Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1997 I M.L.W. Page 686?"
11. Though the question of jurisdiction of the civil court has not been raised before the courts below, it is a legal issue and it can be raised at any stage. I am of the view that the same may be raised in the second appeal.
12. Further, at the outset, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that, in view of the judgements reported in 1997(2) L.W. Page 686 and 2002 (3) C.T.C. Page 411, the suit filed challenging the cancellation order of the community certificate and seeking declaration that he belongs to a particular community is not maintainable.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also agreed with the legal submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
14. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on a judgement reported in 1997 (2) L.W. Page 686 (The State of Tamil Nadu Ors. v. A. Gurusamy), which reads as follows:
"3. The only question is whether the suit is maintainable? By operation of Sec.9 of CPC, 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
Art.341 and
342 of the Constitution, with respect of Lists of the Scheduled and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State, that a particular caste or tribe is defined in
Art.366 (24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment by the Parliament under
Art.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. The question hen is whether the respondent has been given an opportunity to establish his case before the authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained by him? The order of the District Collector dated 02.12.1991 clearly mentions that an opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself had examined him. The District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What he does is an enquiry complying with the principles of rational justice. He considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation. It is self-serving document. The authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to establish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on January 23, 1971. It is then contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as to which community comes under particular Entry of the Presidential notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment; the party making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by the State that the State would project perpetration of fraud defeating the Constitutional objective; no promise was made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The courts would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued by the courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction ."
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on a judgement reported in 2002 (3) C.T.C. Page 411 (Union of India V. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai), which reads as follows:
"9. There can, therefore be no doubt that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is that a suit for declaration that a person belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is impliedly barred by Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that decision of the Supreme Court has been considered by two learned single Judges of this Court, who have taken the view that even after that judgement of the apex Court, there is no bar to a suit for declaration that a person belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, being entertained by the Civil Court."
16. From the above decisions, it could be seen that the suit filed for declaration to declare that the respondent belongs to Katunayakkan Community is not maintainable. Therefore, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are erroneous, and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly the judgements and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants. The second appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
ars To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Panruti
2. The District Munsif, Panruti