Pariyagam Pillai V. Cader Meera

1932 Present : Garvin S.P.J. and Maartensz A.J.

PARIYAGAM PILLAI v. CADER MEERA

37-D. C. Colombo, 1,275

Jurisdiction-Order for delivery of possession-Resistance offered by bona fide claimant-Land situate outside Court's jurisdiction-Civil Procedure Code, s. 327.

Where in a proceeding under section 327 of the Civil Procedure Code the subject-matter of the claim is proved to be outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, monetary, local or otherwise, the Court has no right to determine the claim.

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo.

Weerasooria, for plaintiff, appellant.

H. V. Perera, for defendants, respondents.

January 22, 1932. GARVIN S.P.J.-

In execution of a money decree obtained in this case certain premises outside the jurisdiction of this Court were seized and sold at the instance of the substituted plaintiff to whom the original plaintiff had assigned the decree. At the sale the substituted plaintiff became the purchaser. He then obtained an order for delivery and possession under the provisions of section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code but was resisted and could not get possession. Proceedings were then taken under the provisions of section 325 and the Court on being satisfied that the persons who resisted were other than the judgment-debtor and were claiming to be in possession of the property on their own account directed that the petition of the substituted plaintiff be numbered and registered as a plaint as provided for. by section 327 of the Code. The defendants filed answer and took the objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine the contest which arose between them and the plaintiff purchaser. At the hearing a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction was framed arid tried and the learned District Judge upheld the plea and dismissed the action.

The parties are agreed that if the question of the Court's jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding must be determined in accordance with the rules for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court prescribed by section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code then this matter would clearly be outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It was urged, however, that the language of section 327 must be construed to mean that a special jurisdiction has been vested in the Court which issued the order for possession to hear and investigate this contest as to possession and title whether the matter came within the ordinary limits of its jurisdiction or not.

In the case of Fernando v. Fernando[24 N. L. R. 502. ] it was held that section 327 did not enlarge the ordinary limits of the Court's jurisdiction, and this decision was followed by me in the case of Daniel v. Rasiah [ 31 N. L. R. 438.] In each of the two cases referred to the question arose in connection with a proceeding in the Court of Requests, and in each case the question for decision was whether the Court of Requests had jurisdiction to determine the matters which fell for decision in a proceeding under section 327 or section 328 where the matter was manifestly in excess of the monetary limits set to its jurisdiction. This case differs from those referred to, in that being a proceeding in a District Court there is no question of a monetary limit. It is difficult, however, upon principle to hold consistently with those two rulings that although section 327 does not give a Court jurisdiction to determine a matter which is outside the monetary limits set to its jurisdiction that it nevertheless has jurisdiction to deal with matters which are definitely outside other limits set to its jurisdiction. The language of section 327 if it is not capable of the interpretation that the Court, whatever that Court may be, is vested with a special and unlimited jurisdiction to deal with the matter irrespective of the pecuniary or other limitations of its ordinary jurisdiction, is not capable of any other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document