1937 Supreme(Cal) 279
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Henderson, J.
Hatemuddin Sirkar & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Musajjama Sircar - Respondent
Decided On : 22-11-1937
The court emphasized that decisions must be supported by evidence and fall within the court's jurisdiction. Any dispute on jurisdiction should be decided by the appellate officer appointed under Section 40.
Headnote:
Rule - Decree-holder - Setting aside sale
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners requested time to negotiate a private sale of the mortgaged property, but the Munsif brought the property to sale, alleging that the petitioners did not reside within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Munsif's decision to bring the property to sale was unsupported by evidence and was not within the Munsif's jurisdiction. The court set aside the sale and directed the Munsif to proceed in accordance with the law.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Munsif, Evidence supporting the sale
Ratio Decidendi: The Munsif's decision must be supported by evidence and must fall within the Munsif's jurisdiction. Any dispute on jurisdiction should be decided by the appellate officer appointed under Section 40.
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute, the sale of the property was set aside, and the Munsif was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.
ORDER
Henderson, J. - This is a Rule calling upon the decree-holder to show cause why a sale should not be set aside. The facts are these. On 31st March the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 30 and asked for time on the ground that they would try and negotiate a private sale of the mortgaged property. They were granted time upto 20th April. In the meantime the petitioners had recourse to a Board appointed under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and the Chairman of the Board gave notice of the application to the Munsif in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of that Act. The Munsif refused to take any action, but brought the property to sale on the ground that the petitioners did not reside and the property was not situated within the jurisdiction of the Board. It seems pretty clear what was the decisive reason which induced the learned Munsif to pass this order. When the petitioners applied for time on 31st March the decree-holder objected on the ground that the application was a mere dodge to enable the petitioners to go to a Board. There was apparently an under-taking given by the petitioners that they would not go to a Board and the learned Munsif added that if they did, his order granting time would be vacated. The learned Munsif refers to these matters in the very beginning of his order.
2. Unfortunately, it was impossible to vacate the order granting time and the learned Munsif's further proceedings can-not be supported on two grounds. In the first place, there was no evidence whatever before him which would entitle him to say that the petitioners do not ordinarily reside or that the mortgaged property is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In the second place, this is not a matter which was within jurisdiction of the learned Munsif at all. If there is any dispute on this matter, it is to be decided by the appellate officer appointed u/s 40 and that officer is precluded from entertaining such an objection unless it was taken at the earliest opportunity before the Board to which the application was made. This Rule must, accordingly, be made absolute, the sale of the property set aside and the Munsif directed to proceed in accordance with law. I make no order as to costs.