1934 (7) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deed of relinquishment dated December 14, 1923.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.
3. Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to review his judgment and decree of December 22, 1924.
4. Ownership and attachment of the property in question.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deed of Relinquishment
The plaintiffs, minors at the time, based their suit on a deed of relinquishment executed by Musammat Chhunni on December 14, 1923, claiming absolute ownership of the property. The first defendant, Musammat Dulhin, contested the deed, alleging it was without consideration, fraudulent, null and void, and contrary to Sections 52 and 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Subordinate Judge initially found the deed to be fictitious and fraudulent, dismissing the suit. However, upon review, the Subordinate Judge recognized that Musammat Chhunni's life interest in the property ceased upon her death, and thus the plaintiffs inherited the property, rendering the deed's validity immaterial.

2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens
The Subordinate Judge initially applied the doctrine of lis pendens, noting that Musammat Dulhin had appealed the money decree and the appeal was pending, making the deed of relinquishment bad and void. The High Court, however, did not address this specific issue in its judgment.

3. Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to Review His Judgment and Decree
The pivotal issue was whether the Subordinate Judge had the jurisdiction to review his judgment and decree of December 22, 1924. The review was granted on the ground that Musammat Chhunni had died, thus changing the circumstances. However, the appellants argued that this ground did not fall within the permissible grounds for review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLVII, Rule 1. The Privy Council held that the review was improperly granted as the ground for review was not analogous to those specified in the rule.

4. Ownership and Attachment of the Property
The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on the deed of relinquishment, while Musammat Dulhin had obtained a money decree and sought to attach the property. The Subordinate Judge, upon review, held that the plaintiffs inherited the property upon Musammat Chhunni's death and thus were the rightful owners, making the property not liable for attachment under the personal decree against Chhunni.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council concluded that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the review, as the grounds for review did not meet the criteria specified in Order XLVII, Rule 1. Consequently, the judgment and decree of November 30, 1925, were set aside, and the original judgment of December 22, 1924, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit was restored. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were ordered for the High Court proceedings or the appeal to His Majesty in Council.