Kapileshwar Jha vs Raghunandan Prasad and others

Mullick, J

It is quite clear that it is not open to this Court to interfere in revision

The opposite party Nos. 3 to 12 were applicants for registration under Act VII 1876 before the Collector and asked for mutation on the strength of a kabala alleged to have been executed for consideration by the registered proprietor of the estate. There were two sets of objectors, namely (1) Ambika Prasad and (2) Kapileshwar Jha, each of whom claimed registration on the strength of their kabalas; and the question before the Collector was who was in possession. The Collector proceeded under S. 55 of the Act and referred the case to the Civil Court for a decision on the question as to who had the right to possession. The case was tried by the District Judge of Darbhanga who came to the conclusion that the kabala of Ambika Prasad and his brother being unregistered could not prevail and that the kabala of Kapileshwar Jha, objector No. 2, although registered and purporting to be of a date prior to the date of the petitioner''s kabala being collusive, the petitioner''s document should prevail and that he was entitled to the right to possession. Against this order the present application has been made for the exercise of our revision jurisdiction under S. 115 C. P.C.

Now, it is quite clear that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the matter. He had under S. 59 to determine the matter summarily and to deliver possession to the successful party and this he has done. It is said that he has exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the kabala of Kapileshwar was collusive; but I cannot see that this contention is tenable for he had jurisdiction to hold whether or not the kabala was operative and whether he was right or wrong in his finding, it cannot be said that he has exercised any jurisdiction which was not vested in him under the law. In my opinion there was no illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and there is no right of revision against his order,

There is also a further reason why revision should not be allowed. It is the practice of this Court that where there is another remedy, this Court will not interfere under S. 115 C. P. C. and as the unsuccessful party in the present case has a right of suit, we ought not to interfere in the exercise of our revision powers.

As to the general question whether decisions under S. 59 of the Land Registration Act are open to revision by the Civil Court, we have been referred to Musstt. Umatul Mehdi Vs. Musstt. Kulsoom which was followed by a Division Bench of the same Court in Rameshwar Singh v. Raghunath Singh [1908] 35 Cal. 571. Now though it may perhaps be necessary upon a proper occasion to further examine that part of these decisions, which deals with the right of revision by the High Court under S. 115 C. P. C, it is not necessary for our purposes here to decide the point. I would only observe that if indeed there is any right of revision in the High Court such as the learned Judges in the cases above cited have held to exist, it does not seem clear what will be the effect of a judgment of reversal by the High Court after the District Judge has already issued a certificate to the Collector to make the necessary entries in his books. The Land Registration Act gives no power to any Civil Court to amend or alter the entry made by the Collector in his books in pursuance of the Civil Court''s orders nor to interfere with the possession of the successful party. As a matter of first impression it seems to me that S. 62 of the Land Registration Act means that there is right of appeal or review under any enactment what so ever against the order of the Civil Court. But, as I have said, it is not necessary to decide the question here and the present application for revision may be dismissed on the short ground that there was no irregular or illegal exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Court.

The application is dismissed. Hearing fee one gold mohur.

Bucknill, J.

I agree.