1959 (11) TMI 63 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit maintainability under Section 9(4)(c) of Act XXVI of 1948
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in rehearing the appeal
- Estoppel against appellants from challenging the rehearing
- Finality of Tribunal's decision under Section 3-A (4)(b) of Madras Act XXIX of 1956

Analysis:

Issue 1: The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 9(4)(c) of Act XXVI of 1948, which states that the decision of the Tribunal on the issue in the suit is final and not subject to challenge in a Court of law. However, the appellants argued that due to the unique circumstances where the Tribunal initially gave a decision without all parties involved, including the ryots, and later reheard the appeal with all parties, the matter could be challenged in appeal. The Court held that quasi-judicial Tribunals should have inherent powers to review judgments to render justice, and the appellants' consent to the rehearing estopped them from challenging the subsequent decision.

Issue 2: The Court emphasized that the appellants were estopped from contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in rehearing the appeal, as they had invited the rehearing and consented to the procedure. The Court viewed the rehearing as an equitable estoppel, preventing the appellants from challenging the final decision rendered with all parties involved. The Tribunal's decision was considered binding on all parties, and the appellants were not at liberty to challenge it in appeal.

Issue 3: The Court also referred to Section 3-A (4)(b) of Madras Act XXIX of 1956, which states that the decision of the Tribunal on appeal shall be final and not subject to challenge in any Court of law. A similar provision was found in Section 7(3) of Madras Act XXX of 1956. The Court acknowledged that while it may have powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, these statutory provisions limited its jurisdiction to interfere in civil appeals. Therefore, the Court held that the dismissal of the suit by the Subordinate Judge was proper, and no interference was warranted in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with parties bearing their own costs.