Back
1978 Supreme(Kar) 53
Karnataka High Court
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY
Manappa Manikappa Sheded - Appellant
Versus
Bhaskhrappa A Bhasana - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1393 of 1973
Decided On : 03/06/1978
B.P. Holla, for Appellants; B.V. Krishnaswamy Rao, for Respondents Nos. 2, 8 and 9.
The central legal point established in the given judgment is the requirement of showing prejudice resulting in failure of justice to interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of want of jurisdiction and the procedural requirements for recording compromise in a representative suit.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Suit maintainability - S. 11, O. 23 (3) and O. 9 R. 9 of the Civil P. C. - [Christian Community, United Basel Mission Church in India, U. B. M. C. I, Church of South India, C. S. I.] - [S. 21 of the Civil P. C., O. XXIII R. 3 of the Civil P. C., O. IX R. 9 of the Civil P. C.] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit and the applicability of S. 11, O. 23 (3) and O. 9 R. 9 of the Civil P. C. in relation to a previous suit. The court emphasized the bundle of essential facts constituting the cause of action and the requirement of showing prejudice resulting in failure of justice to interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The court also highlighted the procedural requirements for recording compromise in a representative suit and the inapplicability of O. IX R. 9 to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants-plaintiffs brought a suit in the representative capacity on behalf of all the members of the Christian community owing allegiance to the organisation called the 'United Basel Mission Church in India' (U. B. M. C. I) for a declaration that the resolution of the District Church Council of the U. B. M. C. I. passed in May 1958 that the churches in Bombay-Karnataka area should join in the Church of South India (C. S. I.) was void and ultra vires of the Constitution and powers of the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from convening the meetings of the District Church Council or the North Karnataka Pradeshik Council and also restraining them from operating the accounts of the District Church funds, etc. The trial Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the want of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit and the applicability of S. 11, O. 23 (3) and O. 9 R. 9 of the Civil P. C. in relation to a previous suit. The court emphasized the bundle of essential facts constituting the cause of action and the requirement of showing prejudice resulting in failure of justice to interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The court also highlighted the procedural requirements for recording compromise in a representative suit and the inapplicability of O. IX R. 9 to the present case.
Issues: The issues involved the want of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit and the applicability of S. 11, O. 23 (3) and O. 9 R. 9 of the Civil P. C. in relation to a previous suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the bundle of essential facts constituting the cause of action and the requirement of showing prejudice resulting in failure of justice to interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The court also highlighted the procedural requirements for recording compromise in a representative suit and the inapplicability of O. IX R. 9 to the present case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the appellate court were set aside, with a direction to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same on merits, and in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :- The appellants-plaintiffs brought a suit in the representative capacity on behalf of all the members of the Christian community owing allegiance to the organisation called the "United Basel Mission Church in India" (U. B. M. C. I) for a declaration that the resolution of the District Church Council of the U. B. M. C. I. passed in May 1958 that the churches in Bombay-Karnataka area should join in the Church of South India (C. S. I.) was void and ultra vires of the Constitution and powers of the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from convening the meetings of the District Church Council or the North Karnataka Pradeshik Council and also restraining them from operating
the accounts of the District Church funds, etc. The trial Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
2. Defendants 1 and 2 being the president and Treasurer of the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I. preferred Regular Appeal No. 99 of 1968 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bijapur. In the appeal counsel on both sides argued only two preliminary points, both related to the maintainability of the suit without going into the merits of the matter. The learned Judge accepted both the contentions and allowed the appeal dismissing the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs appeal to this Court.
3. The first question relates to want of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. The learned Judge has stated thus:
The suit was filed in the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Bijapur. The cause of action for the suit as stated in the plaint was the passing of the resolution dated 22-5-1958 by the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I. at Hubli. But defendants 1 and 2 were then residing at Hubli which remained outside the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, Bijapur. That there were the no averments in the plaint that the said resolution was enforced at Bijapur and therefore, the plaintiffs at Bijapur had no cause of action and the Munsiff Court at Bijapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. It seems to me that the learned Judge has taken a too narrow view of the matter. The cause of action as it is well accepted, is a bundle of essential facts and refers entirely to the media upon which the plaintiffs ask the Court to arrive at the conclusion in their favour. If one peruses the entire averments in the plaint, It is evident that the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the impugned resolution dated 22-5-1958 passed at Hubli. The effect of the resolution was that the Churches in Bombay-Karnataka area were compulsorily affiliated to "Church of South India" which had absolutely no connection with the U. B. M. C. I. and the faith and order of the members of the two organisations were quite different from each other. The plaintiffs could not be compelled to change their faith even by the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I and therefore any action of the District church council of joining a new organisation in the entire Bombay-Karnataka area, would be void and ultra vires of the
constitution and powers. The substance of these allegations was that the plaintiffs must join the C. S. I. whether they like it or not. Having regard to these averments in the pleadings, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have no cause of action at Bijapur to sue defendants 1 and 2 although the defendants were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court.
5. Even otherwise, objection as to territorial jurisdiction cannot be allowed by the appellate Court unless such objection has been raised in the trial Court before the issues were settled and unless it was shown that there has been a consequent failure of justice. That is the requirement of Section 21 of the Civil P. C. The defendants' objection as to jurisdiction was rejected by the trial Court. They have adduced evidence on
