Smt. Sudamabai Vs. Pratapsingh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- - 4. the contention of the applicant's learned counsel is that as the applicant had denied the non-applicant's title controversy as to title was clearly involved and the small cause court had therefore, no jurisdiction to decide the suit......support of this submission reliance was placed on the decision in damodar v. vasant (1973 mp lj note 68) wherein with reference to section 15 and schedule ii article 8 of the act it has been held that where title is claimed by purchase and that title is denied the court of small cause has no jurisdiction. 5. the contention of the non-applicants learned counsel is that on the material on record the relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved and no interference in revision is called for. 6. the point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. on the material on record, the contention of the applicant's learned counsel prevails. once there is want of jurisdiction the availability of material for the finding asto relationship is little to purpose. the decision rendered is vitiated due to want of jurisdiction and has to be set aside. a right judgment by a wrong court is no judgment in the eye of law. 8. in the result, the revision petitionsucceeds and is allowed. the judgment anddecree passed by the court below are setaside. it is ordered that in the circumstancesof the case, costs throughout shall be borneby the parties as incurred.

Judgment:

ORDER

K.L. Shrivastava, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the decree dt. 20-1-1986 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore exercising powers under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act') in small cause case No.1306/79.

2. Circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. The non-applicant sued the applicant for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the accommodation in question alleging that the latter was his tenant. The non-applicant claimed title to the property under a sale-deed. The applicant contested the title of the non-applicant and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. After trial, the learned trial Court decreed the claim for arrears and hence this revision.

4. The contention of the applicant's learned counsel is that as the applicant had denied the non-applicant's title controversy as to title was clearly involved and the Small Cause Court had therefore, no jurisdiction to decide the suit. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decision in Damodar v. Vasant (1973 MP LJ Note 68) wherein with reference to Section 15 and Schedule II Article 8 of the Act it has been held that where title is claimed by purchase and that title is denied the Court of Small Cause has no jurisdiction.

5. The contention of the non-applicants learned counsel is that on the material on record the relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved and no interference in revision is called for.

6. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

7. On the material on record, the contention of the applicant's learned counsel prevails. Once there is want of jurisdiction the availability of material for the finding asto relationship is little to purpose. The decision rendered is vitiated due to want of jurisdiction and has to be set aside. A right judgment by a wrong court is no judgment in the eye of law.

8. In the result, the revision petitionsucceeds and is allowed. The judgment anddecree passed by the Court below are setaside. It is ordered that in the circumstancesof the case, costs throughout shall be borneby the parties as incurred.