The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Court may lose its jurisdiction during the pendency of a proceeding, and if it proceeds to pronounce judgment, such judgment must be regarded as void because made without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of a kabuliyat executed by their predecessor on the 28th February 1913. The Trial Court held that the kabuliyat was not operative and that rent was recoverable only at the rate mentioned in a Settlement Record prepared u/s 112 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of Appeal below has held that the kabuliyat was operative inasmuch as the Settlement Record had been prepared without jurisdiction. The substantial question in controversy is, which of these conflicting views is correct.

2. Section 112 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides as follows:

(1) The Local Government, with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council, may, on being satisfied that the exercise of the powers hereinafter mentioned is necessary in the interests of public order or of the local welfare, or that any landlord is demanding rents which have been illegally enhanced above those entered as payable in a Record of Rights prepared under this Chapter, invest a Revenue Officer with the following powers or either of them, namely:

(a) power to settle all rents;

(b) power, when settling rents, to reduce rents if, in the opinion of the officer, the maintenance of existing rents would on, any ground, whether specified in this Act or not, be unfair or inequitable.

(2) The powers given under this section may be made exercisable within a specified area either generally or with reference to specified cases or classes of cases.

(2a) A settlement of rents under this section shall be made in the manner provided by Sections 104 to 104-J (both inclusive).

(3) When the Local Government takes any action under this section, the Settlement Record prepared by the Revenue Officer shall not take effect until it has been finally confirmed by the Governor-General in Council; and the revision, by direction of the Board of Revenue under Sub-section (2) of Section 104G, of a Record of Rights,...prepared under this section, shall be subject to a like confirmation by the Governor-General in Council.

3. In exercise of the powers conferral by this section, the following Notification Was published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 28th August 1912 (part I, p. 1389).

4. 'No. 2416 L.R.--The 27th August 1912--In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 112 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, (Act VIII of 1885), and with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council, the Governor in Council is pleased to invest Mr. P.M. Robertson, Diputy Collector and Settlement Officer in District Birbhum, acting under Chapter X of the said Act, with the following powers.

(a) power to settle rents.

(b)1 power, when settling rents, to reduce rents, if in the opinion of the officer the maintenance of existing rents would on any ground, whether specified in the said Act or not, be unfair or inequitable.

5. These powers will be exerciseable in respect of:

(a) All areas held by Sonthals headman (Chakdars) and

(b) All holdings of Sonthal. Bhuias (or Ghatwals), Bals, Baurias and Dhangars, in the villages in District Birbhum for which a survey has been made and Record of Rights prepared under the Notifications specified below:

(1) No. 4161 L.R. dated the 23rd December 1909, published at page 1963, Part I of the Calcutta Gazette of the 29th idem.

(2) No. 370 T.R. dated the 10th May 1910, published at page 624, Part I, of the Calcutta Gazette of the 18th idem.

(3) No. 1926 T.R. dated the 7th October 1910, published at page 1395, Part I, of the Calcutta Gazette of the 12th idem.

6. At the date of this Notification, the disputed land was in the occupation of the Sonthal Chakdar by name Mangal Majhi. On the 13th November 1912 the tenancy was brought to sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlords against Mangal Majhi. Nogendra Bala Debi, since dead, and now represented by her sons, the defendants became the purchaser at the execution sale. On the 28th February 1913 she executed a kabu