IMPORTANT POINT
An objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction is different from an objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter. An objection to the want of territorial jurisdiction does not travel to the root of or to inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain the suit.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 15/17 July 2018.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass:

On 9 May 1985, a partition suit, 154/1985 was instituted by Smt. Saroja Rani, daughter of Late Rai Sri Krishna (since deceased), in respect of her 1/4th share in the suit property which comprises of properties at Ranchi and Varanasi. The suit was instituted at Ranchi in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge. The defendant in that suit (since deceased) filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna questioning the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Courts. The petition was disposed of by the High Court on 10 May 1989 with the direction that any objection to jurisdiction would be decided by the Special Subordinate Judge at Ranchi as a preliminary issue. A preliminary decree was passed 4th ex-parte on 13 June, 1990 granting the Petitioner her extent of 1/share in the schedule property. A final decree was passed on 5 April 1991 confirming the preliminary decree passed on 13 June, 1990.

One of the defendants in the partition suit filed a title suit [114/1998] before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. On 22 July 2003, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The first respondent filed a title suit[176/2000] before the Court of Subordinate Judge at Varanasi which was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC on 12 April 2005 on the ground of being barred under Section 21A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). The first respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 in respect of the title suit filed at Ranchi which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 19 February 2008.

Since the mother of the appellant was alive when the suit was instituted, the claim was confined to a 1/4th share. During the pendency of the suit, the mother died. As a result, there was a modification in the share of the three sisters at 1/3rd each. On 18 December 2013, the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi passed a supplementary final decree in view of the death of the mother of the appellant and the first respondent on 9 February 1996.

4. On 12 May 2014, the appellant filed proceedings for the execution of the final decree at Ranchi [5/2014]. On 1 January 2015, the first respondent filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the decree dated 13 June 1990, the final decree dated 5 April 1991 and the supplementary final decree dated 18 December 2013, were without jurisdiction and therefore, a nullity. On 10 March 2015, the first respondent challenged the decree dated 13 June, 1990 in appeal under Section 96 of the CPC [43/2015]. The appeal is pending.

5. On 10 March 2016, the executing court dismissed the objections of the first respondent under Section 47 of the CPC with the following observations:

“The decree holder is entitled to get the fruits of the decree and the executing court cannot go behind the decree. When a decree is made by a court which has no inherent jurisdiction, an objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. Where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at trial, which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree on the ground of jurisdiction.”

Aggrieved by the order of the executing court, the first respondent initiated proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that the executing court was in error in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the objection as to the validity of the decree on ground of an alleged absence of territorial jurisdiction.

6. The High Court observed that the