1800 (1) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit pending the Land Tribunal's decision on tenancy.
2. Acquiescence of defendants in the proceedings.
3. Application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge:
The primary question before the court was whether the Civil Judge was competent to dispose of the suit pending the receipt of a finding regarding tenancy from the Land Tribunal. The court noted that the learned Civil Judge passed no orders on I.A.10, which sought to revoke the stay and decide the suit directly. The court emphasized that without vacating the stay or recalling the reference made to the Tribunal, the Civil Judge could not have proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits. The court held that as long as the stay was current and operative, the Civil Judge had become functus officio for the time being and was disabled from disposing of the suit on its merits. The court concluded that the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge were non est, as they were made without jurisdiction.

Acquiescence of Defendants:
The court addressed the argument that the defendants, by leading evidence without objecting to the proceedings, had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and were now debarred from challenging the judgment. The court rejected this argument, stating that acquiescence cannot validate an order that is a nullity. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in KIRAN SINGH & OTHERS v. PASWAN AND OTHERS, emphasizing that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced. The court held that the defendants' passive participation did not amount to acquiescence that could preclude them from challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.

Application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961:
The court examined the application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which allows the court to dispose of matters other than those remitted to the Tribunal. The court noted that the issue of tenancy was central to the dispute and had been remitted to the Tribunal for a decision. The court held that the Civil Judge could not have disposed of the suit without a finding on the issue remitted to the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the Civil Judge's action in disposing of the suit without waiting for the Tribunal's finding was illegal and exceeded its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the judgment and decree pertaining to the suit items 1 and 2 were unsupportable and had to be vacated.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal in part, vacating the decree against defendants 1 and 2 regarding suit items 1 and 3. This part of the suit, which is severable, will have to be disposed of afresh by the lower court after the Tribunal reaches its findings on the issue referred to it. The decree regarding item No. 2 was affirmed, as it was not specifically claimed by the contesting defendants to be tenanted property and was not comprised within the reference made by the court to the Tribunal. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this court. The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.