Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others Subject matter of the case - What is the meaning of "Any other sufficient cause" and principle "of Ejusdem Generis" under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. ? Facts of the case - 1. On 22nd October, 1912 one Mr. Chhajju Ram purchased certain lands of villages Kasgar and Jammi Kera from Mrs. Forbes for Rs. 42,000/- Mr. Chhajju Ram also took the possession of the above properties after the execution of the sale deed in his favour. 2. Neki Ram and others filed a suit against Chhajju Ram alleging that the execution of the above sale deed in favour of the defendant is collusive hence the same be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be given the possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of their preemptions. It was argued by the plaintiffs that :- i. The plaintiffs are Gaur Brahmins by caste and are the occupancy tenants of village Kasgar and were the members of Agriculture Tribes within the meaning
Hira Lal Patni Vs. Shri Kali Nath
Subject matter of the case - Whether the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction U/S. 21, 38 & 47 C.P.C., goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the court? Whether the validity of a decree can be challenged on that ground in execution proceedings?
Facts of the case :-
1. Hira Lal Patni wanted to purchase the shares of "John Mill" of Agra. He took the services of Mr. Kali Nath for this purpose.
2. On 10th July, 1946 with the aid of Mr. Kali Nath, Hira Lal Patni along with one another purchased the entire interest of one Major A.U. Khan.
3. After seeking the permission U/S. 12 of Letters Patent Act, Mr. Kali Nath filed a suit No. 3718.47 against Hira Lal Patni in Bombay High Court for the recovery of his commission amounting to one Lakh Rupees.
4. High Court referred the dispute to an arbitrator namely Mr. W.E. Pereira, who was the administrator of the property of the deceased Major A.U. John.
5. The defendant contended in his written statement that the suit was out of territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court and as such it is not authorised hear the same.
6. The arbitrator submitted his award before Bombay High Court providing to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.75,000 at the rate of 6% per annum.
Decision of Bombay High Court :-
Holding that there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, High Court confirmed the award of arbitrator. Defendant filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court against this decision.
Decision of Division Bench of Bombay :-
On 21st January, 1952 bench rejected the appeal and declared the award as part of the decree of the Bombay High Court and sent the same to District Judge of Agra for execution.
The appellant then filled an objection U/S. 47 C.P.C. alleging that Bombay High Court does not have any original jurisdiction to hear the case and consequently the entire proceedings stand null and void.
On 31st April, 1954 the Execution judge dismissed the objection raised by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, filed an execution appeal before Allahabad High Court who dismissed the same on 27th January, 1955. The appellant further filed an appeal in Supreme Court against this decision after obtaining a certificate of fitness from Allahabad High Court.
Decision of Supreme Court :-
Their lordship of Supreme Court held that since the suit was filed after seeking the permission U/S. 12 of the Letters Patent Act, hence the Bombay High Court had the jurisdiction to decide the suit. Their Lordships, further observed that it is also true that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court which had no inherent jurisdiction as was said by Privy Council in Ledgard Vs. Bull in 13 I.A. But the same does not apply to the present case and it cannot be said that the Bombay High Court did not have inherent jurisdiction. The objection to the territorial jurisdiction is not such which can go to the root of the competence of the court, and therefore, be waived. Moreover, the plaintiff respondent sought the permission U/S. 12 of the Letters Patent Act but the defendant did not object for the same nor did he rise any such objection when the dispute was referred to the arbitrator so the appellant cannot now be permitted to say any thing against the award. Their Lordship's, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Principles of Law laid down in this case :-
1. The objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the jurisdiction to hear the case does not stand on the same footing.
2. The competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction and where it is lacking, it is the case of inherent lack of the jurisdiction. On the contrary, an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of a court can be waived and this principle has been recognised U/S. 21 C.P.C.
3. The validity of a decree can be challenged in the execution proceeding only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking inherent jurisdiction in the same sense that it would not have heard the case because the subject - matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit was filled or the decree was passed or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court wholly lacking in jurisdiction over the subject - matter of the suit or parties thereof.
Comments
Post a Comment