SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SHORT NOTE
KERALA HIGH COURT
P.N.Ravindran and K.P.Jyothindranath, JJ.
Narikodan Sathyavalli & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Syndicate Bank Maloor Branch —Respondent
F.A.O. No.89 of 2015
Decided on 1.4.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Smt.Rekha C.Nair, Sri.R.Sudheer, Sri.P.Saju, Sri.R.Pratheesh (Aranmula), Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Maintainability of suit and rights of parties are to be determined with reference to date of institution of suit.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 21—Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950—Section 98(2)—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Decree passed by a court having inherent lack of jurisdiction over subject matter is a nullity and incapable not only of execution but also producing any legal result—Dispute raised by plaintiffs in suit can only be agitated before District Court having jurisdiction over area where subject matter is situated— Suit laid before an incompetent court cannot be rectified or altered so as to maintain it within its jurisdiction.

       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 21—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—A suit instituted before a court having no jurisdiction over subject matter or a court lacking inherent jurisdiction to entertain a suit cannot receive plaint, maintain it on its record and proceed with matter irrespective of subsequent developments or changes occurred—For determining whether a court has jurisdiction or not, entire averments in plaint, legal rights set up in plaint, source of legal rights, reliefs claimed in plaint, valuation shown in plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction etc. are relevant factors—Maintainability of suit and rights of parties are to be determined with reference to date of institution of suit.

       (C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 2 Rule 2—Bar on suit—In order to apply that provision, relinquishment of any portion of plaintiff’s claim should have been made before institution of suit—It has no application after instituting a suit, that too before a court without jurisdiction—This provision can have no application if suit is laid before a court having no inherent jurisdiction over subject matter—By no act of parties jurisdiction can be conferred on a court. (Para 20)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

Narikodan Sathyavalli VS Syndicate Bank Maloor Branch
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top