Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 53
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DUNEDIN, LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, MR. AMEER ALI, AND SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS.
RAMLAL HARGOPAL - Appellant
Versus
KISHANCHAND - Respondents
On Appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Province.
Decided On : December 10, 1923.
Solicitor for appellant: H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitor for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3: E. Dalgado.
A court cannot file an arbitration award if no decree can be framed based on that award which affects any person or property within its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of whether the objection to jurisdiction is raised late in the proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 104 and 109 - Appeal from order on filing an award - Section 104, sub-section 2, deals with internal appeals within the limits of the territory to prevent appeals where the sum in dispute is small - It does not take away the general right of appealing to the Crown provided under Section 109 from any decree or final order passed on appeal by a Court of final appellate jurisdiction.
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 20 of Schedule II - Jurisdiction to file an award - A court cannot file an award if no decree can be framed upon it which would affect any person or property within its jurisdiction - Where the religious institutions and the parties to the dispute are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and although some endowment properties are within the jurisdiction, there is no dispute concerning the ownership or management of those specific properties, the court lacks the jurisdiction to file the award.
Facts of the case:
A family dispute arose regarding the management of religious institutions and landed properties granted for their support, which were situated across different jurisdictions, including a princely state and British India. The parties referred their disputes to an arbitrator, who delivered an award. One party subsequently refused to implement the award, leading to an application to file the award in a district court. The litigation involved complex issues regarding the nature of the trust, the arbitrator's powers, and the jurisdiction of the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the district court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The religious institutions were not within its jurisdiction, and the family members were residents of a princely state. Although some endowment villages were within the district, there was no dispute concerning their ownership or management, only the application of revenues after they had reached the princely state. Consequently, no decree could be framed upon the award that would affect any person or property within the court's jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether an appeal to the Crown is barred by Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether a district court has jurisdiction to file an award when the subject matter and parties are primarily outside its territorial limits.
Ratio Decidendi: An objection to jurisdiction must be considered even if raised late in the proceedings, provided it is manifest from the facts that there is a defect of jurisdiction. If an award does not involve a substantial question affecting property or persons within the court's jurisdiction, the court cannot file the award or pronounce judgment according to it.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment reversed and suit dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
arbitration
- filing of awards
-
appeals
- jurisdiction of the crown
-
jurisdiction
- territorial jurisdiction
-
arbitration
-
civil procedure
-
trusts
-
public charitable trusts
- management and arbitration
-
public charitable trusts
Judgement
Appeal (No. 9 of 1921) from a decree (January 13, 1919) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces (Berar Jurisdiction) reversing a decree (December 22, 1917) of the second Additional District Judge of Amraoti.
The appeal arose out of an application made on Sep tember 25, 1907, by the principal respondents under s. 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, in the Court of the District Judge of East Berar at Amraoti, that he should file in Court an award made on April 22, 1907.
The facts of the case and the course of the proceedings in the Courts in India appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1923. Oct. 23, 25. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant.
Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Parikh for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
[Reference was made for the appellant to Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Ahmad Said Khan (( 1910) I.
L. R. 32 A. 503.) ; and for the respondents to Raghawendra Ayyaji v. Gururao Raghawendra (( 1913)
I. L. R. 37 B. 442.) and Budree Das Mukim v. Chooni Lal Johurry . (( 1906) I. L. R. 33 C. 789.)]
Dec. 10. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD PHILLIMORE. One Mahanand-ram Puranmal, many years ago, opened a shop in Hyderabad in the dominions of the Nizam and carried on a considerable business, which has been continued to this day by his descendants under his name as the name of the firm. He also founded two temples within the dominions of the Nizam, and a third in British India, not however—and this is important—within the District of Berar. Three jagir villages, one within the Nizam dominions and two within British India and the District of Berar, were subsequently granted by Government for the support of the worship in these temples.
Puranmal was succeeded by his son Premsukh, who had three sons, Ramgopal, Hargopal and Chimanram. The family, however, has remained undivided, and the business and landed property have remained in common.
Hargopal seems to have died before his father Premsukh; and on the death of the latter, Hargopals son, Ram Lal, the present appellant, took up the management of the temples, the three villages granted for their support and the family property and business, and his name was entered in the various registers accordingly.
In 1907 the representatives of the other two families brought a suit against Ram Lal claiming that they might be declared co-trustees of one of the temples and entitled to exercise control of the income and expenditure of the two jagir villages in Berar. The District Judge of East Berar, in whose Court the suit was brought, dismissed it, holding that he had no jurisdiction to try it. An appeal was threatened, and then the parties came together and agreed to refer all their disputes to the award of their family priest. He heard the parties, and finally on April 22, 1907, made his award, which was countersigned by all the parties to the dispute. It is a long document, comprising fifty-seven paragraphs, some narrative, some dispositive. He classified the disputes under four heads (1.) Relating to the management of the three jagir villages. (2.) To the management of the three religious institutions. (3.) The estate or family property descended from the ancestor Puranmal. (4.) " Monthly allowances and other miscellaneous matters." This last head included questions relating to a field bought by the son of Ram Lal, payment of arrears of allowances, and sums to be given for the expenses of marriages and funerals.
The general tenour of the award was the recognition of the equal rights of the three families and the institution of committees of three, comprising a representative of each family, giving in each case precedence to some one named member, making Ram Lal the principal or managing member of the committee for the jagir villages, and a representative of one of the other branches, managing member of the committee for the religious institutions and provisions of a similar nature with regard to the family property th
