9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application of section 151, Civil Procedure Code to a remand order within section 105(2) of the Code. 2. Jurisdiction of the civil court in a suit involving the ownership of properties under the Jagir Abolition Act, 1951. 3. Effect of the abolition of jagirs on the plaintiff's title to the suit properties. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Hegde, primarily deals with the application of section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to a remand order falling within section 105(2) of the Code. The case involved a dispute where the appellant, the Jagirdar of the suit properties, brought a suit seeking various reliefs, including ownership declaration and possession of the properties. The defendants contested the suit on grounds such as lack of civil court jurisdiction and the impact of the Jagir Abolition Act, 1951 on the plaintiff's rights. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading to a remand for deciding other issues. After the remand, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a decision upheld in subsequent appeals until the High Court. The High Court, however, deviated from the previous findings, holding that due to the abolition of jagirs under the Jagir Abolition Act, the plaintiff lost title to the properties. It further opined that the issue was not conclusively decided before the remand and thus open to review. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach, emphasizing that the correctness of the remand order was not subject to review as per the Civil Procedure Code. Section 105(2) of the Code expressly precludes disputing the correctness of an order of remand if not appealed against. The Court also clarified that inherent powers under section 151 of the Code cannot be used to circumvent specific provisions or act as an appellate power. Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the impact of the Jagir Abolition Act on the plaintiff's rights. While acknowledging that the suit properties vested in the State post-abolition, it highlighted that the plaintiff could still claim compensation if proven to be the owner at the Act's enactment. Citing precedent, the Court stressed the importance of impleading relevant parties, such as the State, to ensure a comprehensive determination of rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decree, remanding the case for impleading the State and resolving all parties' rights lawfully. The judgment concluded without awarding costs to any party, emphasizing the need for a just resolution in the interest of justice.
|
