Smt. Sudamabai Vs. Pratapsingh

Smt. Sudamabai vs Pratapsingh

Disposition Petition allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 05, 1988

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/498610

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/498610
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: K.L. Shrivastava, J.
Decided On: May 05, 1988
Case Number: Civil Revn. No. 161 of 1986
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 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.

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 15 - Schedule - Article 8

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Sudamabai

Advocate K.L. Sethi, Adv.

Respondent

Pratapsingh

Advocate M. Khan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 15 - Schedule - Article 8
Cases Referred: Damodar v. Vasant
Reported In: AIR1989MP117

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......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.

Full 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.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1988 Same Parties Smt. Sudamabai vs Pratapsingh Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge K.L. Shrivastava, J. Acts & Sections Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 15 - Sched...

Tenancy