THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus A. GURUSAMY

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 17-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
v. 
A. GURUSAMY 
FEBRUARY 17, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 341(1), 342(1), 366(24) and 366(25)-Scheduled Caste/ 
C Scheduled Tribe-Presidential Notification-Civil suit for declaration of 
Schedule Tribe Status-Maintainability of-Respondent availing the benefit of 
Scheduled Caste claiming himself to be a member of 'Thotti' community-In 
1971 he obtained a certifi~ate of Scheduled Tribe claiming himself to be 
"Kattunaicken ''-Later he applied for a pennanent certificate, which was 
D refused and earlier Certificate cancelled-He filed a Civil suit for declaration 
of Scheduled Tribe status-Suit decreed and appellate Court as also High 
Court confirmed the decree-Held, The authority had given an opportunity to 
the respondent to establish his status and found that the Ce1tificate previously 
1 
obtained was wrong and illega~ and, the ref ore, rightly cancelled the certificate 
given to him in 1971. The declaration of the President of India under A~ticles 
E 341 and 342, with respect to lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
in relation to a State that a particular caste or tribe is defined in A1ticle 
366(24) or A1ticle 366 (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amend-
ment by Parliament under Altic/es 341(2) or 342(2)-By Necessary implica-
tion, the jurisdiction of the Civil coult to take cognizance of and give a 
F declaration stands prohibited-Declaration issued by Coults below is uncon-
stitutional and without jurisdiction-Suit stands dismissed. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S.9-Suit for declaration of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe 
G 
statu~eld, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil coult to 
take co'gnizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited. 
Estoppel----Respondent obtained a certificate of status of Scheduled 
Tribe iii 1971-it'hen he applied for pennanent certificate, it came to the 
H notice of the authority concemed that the celtificate was obtained fraudulent-
104 
I 
'· 
STATEv. A.GURUSAMY 
105 
ly-The certificate was refused a11d earlier ce1tificate ca11celled-Plea of estop- A 
pel raised-Held, a person wlzo plays fraud and obtains a false certificate 
ca1111ot plead estoppel. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.96 of the Madras High 
Court in S.A. No. 228 of 1996. 
M.A. Krishnamoorthy, J.B. Ravi and V. Krishnamurthy for the Ap-
B 
pellants. 
C 
K. V. Mohan for the Respondent 
The folloWing order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. D 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single 
Judge of the Madras High Court, made on 23.2.1996 dismissing S.A. No. 
228/96 on the ground that the declaration granted by the Courts below was 
a concurrent finding of fact. Admittedly, when the respondent was studying E 
in the school, he was described as a member of 'Thotti' community. The 
presidential notification issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution 
read with Article 366(24) of the Constitution notifies 'Thotti' to be a 
Scheduled Caste as Item No. 67 of the Presidential notification. Sub-
sequently, in 1970, the respondent had obtained a certificate from the 
Revenue Divisional Officer indicating him to be 'Kattunaicken' as Item No. F 
9 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu issued by 
the President under Article 342(1) read with Article 366(25) of the Con-
stitution. Subsequently, he had applied for permanent certilicate. On that 
basi~, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the respondent was 
not a Scheduled Tribe but is a Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the certifi- G 
cate came to be cancelled. Impugning the said cancellation, the respondent 
filed a civil suit for declaration that he is 'Kattunaicken', a Schedule Tribe. 
That declaration was granted by the trail Court and affirmed by the 
appellate Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Thus, this 
appeal by special leave. 
H 
A 
B 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2 S.C.R. 
The only question is : whether the suit is maintainable? By operation 
of Section 9 of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognisance of which is expressly 
.. or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil Court. The decla-
ration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Con-
stitution, with respect of lists of the Schedul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.