Back
1969 Supreme(AP) 69
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, KUPPUSWAMY
Gurram Veeranna - Appellant
Versus
Gorrela Ramanna - Respondent
Decided On : 04-25-69
The Principal District Munsif has the power to transfer a suit to the Additional District Munsif under Section 4-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act, even after the case is heard in part. The Additional District Munsif has jurisdiction to try the suit and the defendants are precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif if they have not objected to the transfer of the suit or to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif to continue the proceedings.
Headnote:
MADRAS CIVIL COURTS ACT - SEC. 4-A - TRANSFER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - WAIVER - JURISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF TO TRY SUIT TRANSFERRED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF - SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed in the court of the District Munsif, Eluru. The Principal District Munsif allotted the suit to his file and proceeded with the hearing of the suit upto a certain point. He then transferred the suit to the file of the Additional District Munsif for disposal. The Additional District Munsif recorded the evidence in the suit and subsequently he was posted as the Principal District Munsif. By his order he withdrew the part-heard suit to his file and posted it for further trial. Ultimately, he delivered the judgment and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendants preferred an appeal to the Sub-Court, Eluru. The lower appellate court held that the Principal District Munsif had no jurisdiction to make over the suit to the Additional District Munsif, that the Additional District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and that the Principal District Munsif could not withdraw the part-heard suit again to his own file and continue the trial of the suit. The lower appellate court, therefore, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded the suit to the Principal District Munsif, Eluru for disposal according to law.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Principal District Munsif had the power to transfer the suit to the Additional District Munsif under Section 4-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act. The court also held that the Additional District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendants were precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif as they had not objected to the transfer of the suit or to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif to continue the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Principal District Munsif had the power to transfer the suit to the Additional District Munsif under Section 4-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act? 2. Whether the Additional District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether the defendants were precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif as they had not objected to the transfer of the suit or to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif to continue the proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 4-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act empowers the Principal District Munsif to make arrangements for the distribution of the business of the court among the various District Munsifs from time to time. This power includes the power to transfer a suit from one District Munsif to another after the case is heard in part. 2. The Additional District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit as he was competent to hear and dispose of the suit. The mere fact that the Principal District Munsif allotted it first to his file and subsequently transferred it to the Additional District Munsif in making arrangements for the distribution of the business cannot affect the fact that the Additional District Munsif had jurisdiction to dispose of the case. 3. The defendants were precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif as they had not objected to the transfer of the suit or to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif to continue the proceedings. The defendants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif and could not later on question it.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was set aside and the matter was remanded for disposal by the lower appellate court on the other questions that arise in the appeal.
( 2 ) THE Additional District Munsif thereafter recorded the evidence in the suit and subsequently he was posted as the Prl. District Munsif. By his order dt. 24-7-63 in his capacity as Prl. District Munsif he withdrew the part-heard suit to his file and posted it to 4-6-63 for further trial. Ultimately the judgment was delivered on 28-6-63 whereby he decreed the plaintiff s suit for possession of 13 cents of land along with southern boundary of his land together with past mesne profits for two years prior to suit and futuromesne profits to be determined in separate proceedings. The defendants preferred A S. 28/64 to the Sub-Court Eluru. Before the learned Subordinate judge, a contention was raised for the first time that the Prl. District munsif having allotted the suit to his file and having proceeded with the hearing of the suit upto a certain point had no jurisdiction to transfer the suit to the file of the Addl. District Munsif and the Addl. District munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Similarly, the Additional district Munsif after he became the Prl. District Munsif could not withdraw the part-heard suit again to his own file and continue the trial of the suits the proceedings therefore throughout are without jurisdiction. This contention was accepted by the lower appellate court. In this view, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded the suit to the Prl. District Munsif, Eluru for disposal according to law. The learned Subordinate Judge felt that it was neither desirable nor proper to express any opinion nor make any observation on the merits of the case as he was remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the Prl. District Munsif. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal against the said order of remand.
( 3 ) IT is contended by Mr. Bapiraju on behalf of the appellant, firstly that the lower appellate, court erred in holding that the Prl. District Munsif had no jurisdiction to make over the suit to the Additional District Munsif, of that the Addl. District Munsif had no jurisdiction when he became the Prl. Dt. Munsif to withdraw the part-heard suit to his own file and dispose of the same; secondly he contended that the defendants not having raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Addl. Dt. Munsif either in the first instance or subsequently when he became the Prl. District Munsif in trying the suit, they are precluded from questioning the jurisdiction at the appellate stage. The power of a Prl. Dt. Munsif to transfer a suit from his file to that of tae Addl. Dt. Munsif is contained in Sec. 4 (A) of the Madras Civil Courts act which is in the following terms: sec. 4-A: When more than one Subordinate Judge is appointed to a Subordinate Judge s Court or more than one District Munsif to a Dt. Munsif s Court, one of the Subordinate Judges or the District munsifs shall be appointed the Prl. Subord
