Bhawandas and Others vs Kishenrao and Others

This second appeal relates to the applicability of Section 6, Suits Valuation Act, corresponding to Section 11 of the Indian Act.

The suit was originally filed in the Munsiffs Court at Jintur for registration of a document. The suit was decreed ex parte and the document was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Jintur. On the basis of that decree and the registered document the Plaintiff tiled a suit for possession of the property covered by the document. The advocate for the Defendant urged that the Munsif at Jintur had no jurisdiction in respect of the first suit. The question now is whether the decision m the first suit is operative as res judicata even though it was an ex parte decision.

Section 6 referred to above is quite clear on the point. The objection as to jurisdiction has to be raised either in the trial Court or in the appellate Court during the stages in the suit itself. The Defendants not having chosen to appear, the principle of res judicata applies it being taken for granted that for purposes of application of the principle they did appear. We are fortified in our decision by a ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Bisheshar Dayal Vs. Mt. Jafri Begam and Another, (A), where the Division Bench observed:

The objection as to jurisdiction must be deemed to have been raised and decided in 1 the previous suit, as, had''she appeared and taken objection, the Court would have decided it. Therefore applying the principle underlying Section 11, CPC and on grounds of equity, justice and expediency, she was estopped from maintaining that the Court in the previous suit had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

In Sardar Khan v. Aizhar Bibi AIR 1925 Lah 290(FB) (B), Shadi Lai C.J. lays down:

The object of the Legislature in both cases (territorial & pecuniary) is the snmc, namely, that the defect of jurisdiction on territorial or pecuniary ground should not render proceedings in a case abortive if such objection was not taken at the earliest opportunity and there has been no consequent failure of justice.

In Dwarkanath Mitra Biswas Vs. Sm. Hemangini Kar and Another, (C). It was laid down that: "The objection u/s 11. Suits Valuation Act, is to give finality to the decree in the suit". We may even add that the ''document was registered in the Sub-Registrar''s Office at Jintur and evpn if this suit was filed in the Court which the Defendants contend as being the proper Court, the document would have been registered in the same Sub-Registrar''s Office at Jintur; there is consequently no failure of justice.

In the result we allow the appeal and the Plaintiff''s suit is decreed with costs throughout.