Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, A.V.KRISHNA RAO
C.S.Rangaswamy - Appellant
Versus
Pedda Bidda - Respondent
Decided On : 12-02-71
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - REMAND ORDER - REVIEW - JURISDICTION - FINALITY OF REMAND ORDER - EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT REMAND ORDER - ESTOPPEL - SECTION 105(2) - SECTION 151 - ORDER 41 RULE 23 - ORDER 43.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits of a land claiming it as private land. The defendants claimed occupancy rights and denied the plaintiff's title. The trial court held that it had jurisdiction and decreed the suit. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court. On second appeal, the High Court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction and directed the return of the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the remand order passed in the earlier appeal, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction, had become final and could not be reviewed in the subsequent appeal. The subsequent remand order did not affect the finality of the earlier remand order. The trial court's subsequent finding on jurisdiction was redundant and had no legal effect. The defendants were estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction again.
Issues: 1. Whether the remand order passed in the earlier appeal, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction, had become final and could not be reviewed in the subsequent appeal? 2. Whether the subsequent remand order affected the finality of the earlier remand order? 3. Whether the trial court's subsequent finding on jurisdiction was redundant and had no legal effect? 4. Whether the defendants were estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction again?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The correctness of a remand order is not open to review if no appeal is filed against it. (Nainsingh v. Konnawarjee, AIR 1970 SC 997) 2. A subsequent remand order does not affect the finality of an earlier remand order. 3. A trial court's subsequent finding on jurisdiction is redundant and has no legal effect if a previous remand order on the issue of jurisdiction has become final. 4. Defendants are estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction again if they have not appealed against a previous remand order holding that the civil court has jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, and remitted the case for the disposal of the appeal on merits.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother, Obul Reddi, J. given in S. A. No. 118 of 1967, on 22-4-1970 where by the learned Judge allowed the appeal holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently directed the return of the plaint for its presentation before the proper forum created by the Estates Abolition Act.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that the plaintiff who is not 6th respondent before us filed a suit for declaration of title in regard to a land admeasuring Ac. 1-50 cents situate in Peddabadanevada village in former Kuppam Zamindari. He claimed the suit land as private land. He wanted possession of the same. he claimed past as well as future mesne profits.
( 3 ) THE allegation was that Chakravarthi Srinivasa Raghavachari was the original holder of inam. He, because he was old, and the other members of the family entrusted the management to Rajagopala Chakravarthy, the 6th respondent herein, to manage the estate as well as to institute the present suit out of which this appeal arises. It was alleged that by Ex. A-5 dated 24-8-1919. Srinivasa Raghavachari usufructuarily mortgaged the suit land to one Gangappa the father of Defendant 1. to 4 and husband of Defendant No. 5 for a sum of Rs. 160. 00. ON 18/6/1945, Ex. A-6, the mortgage was discharged. Gangappa was given lease by Srinivasa Raghavachari of the suit land. Till three years prior to his death he was paying rent. His heirs, after his death, continued the cultivation as tenants and continued to pay the rent till 1363 Fasli. It was further alleged that defendants then committed default. The plaintiff, therefore, issued the suit notice, Ex. A-2, on 18-4-1955 claiming possession and share of the produce. The defendants gave a reply notice, Ex. A-3 on 26-4-1955. They denied the tenancy as well as the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the above said reliefs.
( 4 ) THE defence set up by the defendants was almost the same as they had set out in the reply notice. Apart from denying the tenancy and the title of the plaintiff they questioned the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit representing the joint family. They claimed that the land in question is a ryoti land, that they have got occupancy rights and that the plaintiff has not title whatsoever to the suit land. The inam estate was abolished and taken over by the Government. The plaintiff filled an application under Section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act for the grant of a patta and as a result the plaintiff cannot file the suit not the civil Court has jurisdiction as the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer. We are not concerned with the other defences raised in this appeal.
( 5 ) UPON these pleadings the trail Court framed appropriate issues. The issue with which we are concerned was framed on 12-12-1956 as an additional issue:---"whether the allegations made in paras 4 and 5 of the written statement are true and whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?"
( 6 ) AFTER a property trial the trial Court held that it has jurisdiction. It referred also to the earlier finding given in that behalf and to the fact that an appeal was preferred against that decree. The appellate Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The trial Court held that that decisions became final as no appeal was preferred against it and was binding upon the parties. The trial Court further found that the suit land is a private land and that the plaintiff is entitled to sue. It further held that the defendants are tenants and that they do not have occupancy rights. As a result it found that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs which he claimed. The suit was decreed.
( 7 ) THE matter was carried in appeal by the defendants to the District Court. The District Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues. It is pertinent to not that the question of jurisdiction does not seen to have bee
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
