Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and V.Ramaswami JJ.
Sir Kameshwar Singh
Versus
Ram Prasad Sharma
Civil Revision No. 110 of 1951 ; 111 of 1951 ;
Decided On : JULY 25, 1952
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 151 AND 152 - INHERENT JURISDICTION - COURT CANNOT VACATE DECREE PASSED BY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW - DECREE FOR MESNE PROFITS PASSED AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF SUIT AND PROCEEDING FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF MESNE PROFITS - DECREE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE BY RESORT TO INHERENT JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 800 bighas of land, including 125 bighas subject to a dispute under Section 145, CrPC, and 675 bighas subject to a dispute under Section 144, CrPC. The suit was decreed on compromise against the Secretary of State for India and ex parte against other defendants. Petitioner executed the decree and obtained possession. He then filed an application for mesne profits from 1930 to 1943, which was allowed by the court. Some of the defendants filed an application to set aside the ex parte preliminary and final decrees under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, and also applications under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, to amend the decrees, contending that the decree for mesne profits was illegal, incorrect, and without jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, but allowed the applications under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, and vacated the decree for mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Subordinate Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in vacating the decree for mesne profits. The court found that the defendants had full knowledge of the suit and the proceeding for ascertainment of mesne profits, and that they did not contest the application for mesne profits. The court held that the decree for mesne profits was in accordance with the judgment and that there was no error or ambiguity in the decree. The court further held that Sections 151 and 152, CPC, did not give the Subordinate Judge the jurisdiction to set aside the decree on a finding that the decree was erroneous and inequitable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Subordinate Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in vacating the decree for mesne profits? 2. Whether the decree for mesne profits was erroneous or inequitable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Subordinate Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in vacating the decree for mesne profits because: - Sections 151 and 152, CPC, did not give the Subordinate Judge the jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and set aside a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction except in accordance with law. - The defendants had full knowledge of the suit and the proceeding for ascertainment of mesne profits, but they kept quiet and did not choose to contest the application. - There was no abuse of the process of the court in this case which would require to be prevented or remedied by a resort to the inherent power of the court. 2. The court held that the decree for mesne profits was not erroneous or inequitable because: - The decree was in accordance with the judgment and there was no error or ambiguity in the decree. - The defendants were responsible for any mistake or ambiguity in the preliminary decree as they knew of the decrees, both preliminary and final, and kept quiet for so long, without taking any steps in accordance with law for the correction of such error or ambiguity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications in revision, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge vacating the decrees passed against the contesting opposite parties, and restored the decrees.
Das, J.
1. These two applications in revision arise out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dated the 6th of January, 1951, in two miscellaneous cases, namely. Miscellaneous Case No. 41 and Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1950, before the learned Subordinate Judge.
2. The relevant facts are the following: The petitioner before us is the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga. The petitioner was the proprietor of a village called Rasulpur Makdum in the district of Monghyr. There is an adjoining diara village called Pundarak in the district of Patna, of which the State of Bihar, opposite party No. 3 before us, is the proprietor. The opposite parties classed together as the first party were lessees of Diara Pundarak, and the opposite parties classed together as the 3rd party were tenants of the Khas Mahal in respect of the lands in question. In 1928 there was a dispute about 125 bighas of land as to whether they lay in the petitioners village Rasulpur or in village Pundarak. The dispute resulted in a proceeding under Sec.145, Code of Criminal Procedure. That proceeding terminated against the present petitioner. Soon after there was another dispute regarding a block of 675 bighas of land. There was a proceeding under Sec.144, Code of Criminal Procedure, which was decided against the petitioner.
In 1934 the petitioner brought a suit for about 800 bighas of land, being Title Suit No. 24 of 1934 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr. The suit was primarily one for a declaration of title and recovery of possession: there was also a claim for mesne profits, the nature and details whereof have given rise to some controversy. I shall later deal with that aspect of the matter. The present opposite parties were defendants in the suit, the lessees and tenants being defendants 2nd and 3rd parties and the defendant 1st party was the then Secretary of State for India in Council through the Collector of Monghyr. The suit, it appears, was contested by the Secretary of State alone. On the 28th of May, 1940, there was a compromise and the suit was decreed on compromise against the Secretary of State for India and ex parte against the other defendants. Paragraph 3 of the compromise petition stated: "If any part of the land in dispute is ascertained by the surveyor to be within the Raj boundary Government will pay to the Maharajadhiraj whatever they have realised as profits of this particular land for the past 10 years and up to relinquishment of possession by Government in favour of the Maharajadhiraj."
The Government, however, did not relinquish possession in pursuance of the compromise petition. The result was that the present petitioner executed the decree and got possession delivered by a pleader commissioner on the 20th of April 1943. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application claiming mesne profits from the 28th May, 1930 to the 20th of April 1943, and one Mr. Maheshwar Prasad was appointed pleader commissioner for the ascertainment of mesne profits claimed by the petitioner. He submitted his report on the 21st of May, 1946, and in his report awarded mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 6,365/- and odd annas against the Secretary of State and Rs. 1,19,742/- and odd annas against defendants 2nd and 3rd parties, that is, 1st and 2nd opposite parties before us. The defendants did not appear to challenge the findings of the pleader commissioner, & on the 14th of February, 1947, the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the report of the pleader commissioner and passed a final order for mesne profits. Then on the 29th of May, 1950, more than three years after, some of the present opposite parties filed an application for setting aside the ex parte preliminary and final decrees under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. On the 2nd of September, 1950, they also filed two applications, purporting to be applications under Sections 151 and 152, Code of Civil Procedure, for what they called an a
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
