9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdictional dispute between Manjeri Court and Parappanangadi Court in a suit for partition of immovable property. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in a suit for partition of immovable property. The suit was initiated in 1938, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in 1940 by the Court of Munsiff at Parappanangadi. However, due to a territorial jurisdiction redefinition by the High Court in 1956, the property in question fell under the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Court. In 1966, the plaintiff filed an application for a final decree in the Manjeri Court, which was contested by the defendants citing lack of jurisdiction. Despite objections, the Manjeri Court proceeded with the partition and passed a final decree in 1968. The matter was then taken to the District Judge, who upheld the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Court. Subsequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the objection, setting aside the final decree based on territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue in detail. It highlighted the provision of law in Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that an objection to the place of suing must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and must result in a failure of justice to be entertained by appellate or revisional courts. While the conditions of raising the objection early were met in this case, the aspect of a consequent failure of justice was not substantiated. The Court noted that no material on record indicated any failure of justice due to the choice of the Manjeri Court as the place of suing. As a result, the District Court and the High Court were bound by the legal provision not to entertain the objection, regardless of its merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal promptly, within three months of receiving the case records from the Supreme Court. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
