1996 (2) TMI 545 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decree in question can be held to be a nullity.
2. Whether the plaintiff-decree holder, having lost his right of proprietorship in the property, the Executing Court can refuse to execute the decree.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the decree in question can be held to be a nullity

The appeal arises from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, which directed the execution of a decree despite the property in question having vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. The appellant contended that the decree was null and void as the proprietary rights had vested in the State, rendering the Civil Court's decree a nullity. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, particularly Sections 3, 3A, 6, 8A, and 39.

Section 3(1) of the Act states that upon notification, the estate vests in the State free from all encumbrances, extinguishing pre-existing rights. Section 6 allows intermediaries to retain possession of certain properties upon payment of rent, provided they meet specific conditions. Section 8A(3) stipulates that failure to file a claim within a specified period results in the right to possess the land vesting in the State. Section 39 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits concerning matters already covered under the Act.

The Court found that the intermediary did not file any claim within the stipulated period, and no settlement of rent was made under Section 6. Consequently, the Civil Court lost jurisdiction over the disputed property from the date of the notification under Section 3(1). The decree passed on March 30, 1965, was thus deemed a nullity. The principle of constructive res judicata does not apply to a decree that is a nullity, as its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including execution or collateral proceedings.

The Court referenced the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, which established that a decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in directing the execution of a decree that was inherently null and void.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff-decree holder, having lost his right of proprietorship in the property, the Executing Court can refuse to execute the decree

The Court addressed whether the Executing Court could refuse to execute the decree due to the plaintiff-decree holder losing his proprietary rights. The Court referred to the case of Haji Sk. Subhan vs. Madhorao, which dealt with similar provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. In that case, the Court held that after the issuance of a notification, all proprietary rights vested in the State, and the decree holder could not recover possession of the land.

Applying this precedent, the Court held that the proprietary rights of the plaintiff-intermediary vested in the State of Orissa upon notification. Therefore, the plaintiff could not execute the decree for recovery of possession. The Executing Court was correct in refusing to execute the decree, and the High Court erred in setting aside the Executing Court's order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and annulled the execution proceeding. The decree was held to be a nullity, and the Executing Court's refusal to execute the decree was upheld. There was no order as to costs.