Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.C. Sreedharan
  • A. Achuthan Nambiar
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Vaidialingam
Acts
  • S. 25 of Act IX of 1887,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.C. Sreedharan
  • A. Achuthan Nambiar
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Vaidialingam
Acts
  • S. 25 of Act IX of 1887,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision arises from a plaintiff's petition under S. 115 C.P.C. challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in A.S. 1/1954 which reversed a decree in S.C.S. 323/1950 (District Munsiff's Court, Tellicherry). The material facts and procedural history as stated in the opinion are:

  • O.S. 517/1950: Suit filed by the respondent (as plaintiff) against the present petitioner (then defendant) for recovery of Rs. 385-15-0; the defendant contested denying the borrowing and alleged the suit was a counter-blast to S.C.S. 323/1950.
  • S.C.S. 323/1950: Suit filed by the present petitioner (as plaintiff) against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 144-13-3; this suit was contested by the respondent.
  • Both suits were tried jointly with common evidence recorded in O.S. 517/1950. The District Munsiff dismissed O.S. 517/1950 and decreed S.C.S. 323/1950.
  • Against the dismissal of O.S. 517/1950 the respondent filed A.S. 348/1953 before the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry. Against the decree in S.C.S. 323/1950 the respondent filed C.R.P. 1462/1951 in the High Court, Madras under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887.
  • The High Court returned the C.R.P. 1462/1951 for presentation to the District Court to be heard along with A.S. 348/1953. The C.R.P. as represented to the District Court was registered as A.S. No. 392/1953 and ultimately transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court as A.S. 1/1954.
  • The Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree in O.S. 517 (referred to as 517/1956 in the opinion) and dismissed A.S. 348/1953, but reversed the decree in S.C.S. 323/1950 by allowing A.S. 1/1954.
  • The present petitioner (plaintiff in S.C.S. 323/1950) filed this Civil Revision Petition against A.S. 1/1954 in the High Court under S.115 C.P.C.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and decide A.S. 1/1954 (an appeal registered against a decree of a small cause court) when, as contended, no appeal lies against a small cause court under Central Act IX of 1887.
  2. Whether an order of the High Court returning a C.R.P. for presentation to the District Court can confer jurisdiction on the District Court/Subordinate Judge to entertain an appeal which the law otherwise does not permit.
  3. Whether the High Court may exercise suo motu revisional powers under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 to examine and set aside an appellate judgment rendered without jurisdiction, even if no party has applied for such revision.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff-Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Sridharan)

  • The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in A.S. 1/1954 reversing the decision in S.C.S. 323/1950 was passed without jurisdiction because no appeal is provided under Central Act IX of 1887 against the decree of a small cause court.
  • The order of the High Court returning C.R.P. 1462/1951 for presentation to the District Court cannot confer jurisdiction on the District Court/Subordinate Judge when the law provides none.

Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Atchuthan Nambiar)

  • The respondent had filed a C.R.P. in the High Court and obeyed the High Court's direction (as he understood it) by re-presenting the C.R.P. to the District Court; this was the course taken in reliance on the High Court's order.
  • The respondent contended that he should not be made to suffer because of a procedural act (the High Court's return of the C.R.P.) and that his C.R.P. would have been heard on merits in the High Court if it had not been returned; accordingly, he argued against penalizing him by setting aside the appellate proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Collipara Seetapaty v. Kankipati Subbayya, 20 Mad LJ 718 Held that an appellate decision by a Subordinate Judge reversing a small cause court's decree was made without jurisdiction. Primary Full Bench authority relied upon to support the proposition that the Subordinate Judge's appellate decision (A.S. 1/1954) was without jurisdiction and ought to be set aside.
Bandiram Mookerjee v. Purna Chandra Roy, ILR 45 Cal 926 : AIR 1918 Cal 435 Earlier authority on jurisdictional limits of appellate courts in relation to small cause courts (cited for the same principle). Referenced as one of several supporting authorities showing appellate decision without jurisdiction where no statutory appeal existed.
Somasundaram v. Muthumanicka, AIR 1932 Mad 714 Supports the view that appellate courts may be without jurisdiction in matters arising from small cause courts; also cited for High Court's power to interfere suo motu in revision. Cited for two purposes: (a) to show appellate decisions made without jurisdiction have been set aside; and (b) to support the proposition that the High Court may suo motu consider revision.
Maghi Mal v. Ganpat Rai, AIR 1936 Lah 212 Authority cited in context of appellate jurisdiction limitations. Included among authorities establishing that appellate decision without jurisdiction should be set aside.
Mt. Champa Debi v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1937 Pat 136 Authority cited regarding jurisdictional principles of appellate courts. Cited as supporting precedent that appellate action without statutory competence is void.
Arunagiri Goundan v. Ramaswami Pillai, 1941-2 Mad LJ 537 : AIR 1941 Mad 867 Authority on the limits of appellate jurisdiction and revisional relief. Relied upon as part of the body of cases showing appellate orders made without jurisdiction are liable to be set aside on revision.
District Board Tanjore v. Kuppuswami Konar, 1947-1 Mad LJ 303 : AIR 1947 Mad 382 Authority concerning jurisdictional competence of appellate courts. Used to reinforce the court's view that appellate decisions made in excess of jurisdiction are voidable and can be set aside.
Robert Fisher v. S. Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar, 20 Mad LJ 722 Held that the High Court can, suo motu, consider and set aside a trial court's decree under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 without an application. Cited to justify the High Court's exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction in the present matter (the Court invoked S.25 suo motu).
Kallalagar Devasthanam Madura v. M. Baskaran Pillai, 1942-2 Mad LJ 450 : AIR 1942 Mad 741 Authority supporting the High Court's power to interfere suo motu in revision where appropriate. Cited along with Somasundaram to support the proposition that the High Court may, in a proper case, interfere in revision suo motu.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in the following steps, using only the reasoning contained in the opinion:

  1. Jurisdictional defect identified: The Court observed that no appeal lies against the decree of a small cause court under Central Act IX of 1887; therefore, an appellate proceeding before the District/Subordinate Judge (A.S. 1/1954) was inherently incompetent. The High Court's order returning the C.R.P. to the District Court could not, in the Court's view, lawfully confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise lacked statutory competence.
  2. Procedural irregularity noted: The opinion records puzzlement at the High Court's practice of returning the C.R.P. for presentation to the District Court rather than withdrawing the District appeal to the High Court to be heard together; the Court remarks that the proper course (if joint hearing were intended) would have been withdrawal of the appeal to the High Court.
  3. Application of precedent: The Court relied on established authorities (including a Full Bench decision in Collipara Seetapaty v. Kankipati Subbayya and other cited cases) establishing that appellate decisions made without jurisdiction must be set aside. Those authorities supported the conclusion that A.S. 1/1954 was incompetent and its judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.
  4. Suo motu revisional power invoked: Recognizing that the respondent was not blameworthy for following the High Court's direction, the Court nevertheless exercised its revisional jurisdiction under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 suo motu (citing Robert Fisher and related authorities) to examine whether the trial court's decree in S.C.S. 323/1950 required interference.
  5. Merits review of the small cause decree: After perusing the judgment and records of S.C.S. 323/1950, the Court concluded that the District Munsiff had adequately considered oral and documentary evidence, accepted the plaintiff's evidence, and had given valid reasons for rejecting the defendant's limitation defense. Accordingly, the trial court's decree did not merit interference.
  6. Conclusion on remedial relief: On the identified jurisdictional ground, the Court set aside the Subordinate Judge's appellate decree in A.S. 1/1954 as being without jurisdiction and restored the decree in S.C.S. 323/1950. The Court addressed costs by ordering parties to bear their own costs in the C.R.P. and in A.S. 1/1954, while leaving the small cause suit's costs order intact.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Court set aside the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in A.S. 1/1954 (held to have been passed without jurisdiction) and restored the decree in S.C.S. 323/1950, District Munsiff's Court, Tellicherry.

Implications and immediate effects:

  • The appellate judgment and decree in A.S. 1/1954 are void for want of jurisdiction and have been set aside.
  • The decree originally passed by the District Munsiff in S.C.S. 323/1950 is restored and remains in force.
  • Costs: Parties will bear their own costs in the C.R.P. and in A.S. 1/1954; the order as to costs in the small cause suit (S.C.S. 323/1950) remains as previously adjudicated.
  • No new doctrine or broad precedent is being created by this decision beyond the application and consolidation of existing authorities on the limits of appellate jurisdiction and the High Court's power to exercise suo motu revision; the Court expressly relied on cited precedents to reach its conclusion.

Disposition: Revision allowed; decree and judgment in A.S. 1/1954 set aside; decree in S.C.S. 323/1950 restored.

Show full summary ...

    Ramunni v. Govindan

    Judgement

    This is a Revision under S. 115 C.P.C. by the plaintiff in S.C.S. 323 of 1950, District Munsiffs Court Tcllieherry to revise the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in A.S. 1/54 reversing the decree in S.C.S. 823/50.

    2. The circumstances under which the said A.S. 1 of 1954 came to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry are somewhat unusual and can be stated here briefly.

    3. The petitioner before me was the defendant in O.S. 517/1950 on the file of the court of the District Munsiff, Tellicherry. It was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff against the present petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 385-15-0 stated to have been borrowed by the defendant including interest on the same and certain other expenses.

    4. This suit O.S. 517/50 was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that he had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff therein and also contended that the plaintiffs case was false and had been filed only as a counter blast to his suit S.C.S. 323/1950.

    5. The present petitioner had filed as plaintiff S.C.S. 323/1950 against the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 144-13-3 on account of certain dealings stated to have taken place between them. This suit, in turn, was contested by the respondent herein.

    6. As the petitioner and the respondent before me figured as plaintiff and defendant in the above original and small cause suit they appear to have agreed for having a joint trial of the two suits and common evidence was recorded in O.S. 517 of 1950.

    7. The learned District Munsiff dismissed O.S. 517/1950 (the respondents suit) and decreed S.C.S. 323/1950 (the petitioners suit).

    8. Against the dismissal of his suit O.S. 517/1950, the respondent herein filed A.S. 348/1953 before the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. Against the decree passed in S.C.S. 323/1950 the respondent herein filed C.R.P. 1462/1951 to the High Court, Madras under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887, as he had no right of appeal.

    9. It will be seen that S.C.S. 323/1950 was tried only as a small cause suit and a Revision against the said order was the only remedy available to the respondent herein. It appears that the High Court returned the C. R. P. 1462/1951 to the respondent herein for presentation to the District Court to be heard along with his other appeal A.S. 348/53 mentioned above. With great respect to the learned Judge, it is not known under what provision of law such an order returning the C.R.P., to the District Court was passed; Sec. 25 of the Act IX of 1887 gives power only to the High Court to entertain a Revision against a decree in a small cause suit and the District Court has no powers at all of either entertaining an appeal or a Revision.

    The actual order of the learned Judge has not been placed before me. If I may say so with respect, if the learned judge thought that the C.R.P. in the High Court and the appeal pending in the District Court require to be jointly heard the proper order would have been to withdraw the appeal from the District Court to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of along with the C.R.P. The C.R.P. appears to have been represented in the District Court and it was registered as A. S. No. 392/1953 and ultimately transferred to the Subordinate Judges Court where it was numbered as A.S. 1/1954, though no appeal is competent against the decree of the Small Cause Court.

    10. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree in O.S. 517/1956 and dismissed A.S. 348/1953. No further proceedings have been taken against the decree in A.S. 348/1953.

    11. The learned Subordinate Judge however reversed the decree in S.C.S. 323 of 1950 and allowed A.S. 1/1954. The plaintiff in S.C.S. 323/1950 has filed this Revision against A.S. 1/1954, Sub Court, Tellicherry.

    12. Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has contended before me that the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge in A. S. 1/1954 reversing the decision in S.C.S. 323 of 1950 is one passed without jurisdiction. His contention is that as there is no appeal provided Tinder Central Act IX of 1887, the appeal to the lower appellate Court was incompetent and as such, the order of the lower court also is without jurisdiction. He also stated that the order of the High Court returning C.R.P. 1462/1951 for presentation to the District Court will not confer any jurisdiction on the latter court when it really had none in law.

    13. Mr. Atchuthan Nambiar, the learned counsel for the respondent has really no answer for this contention excepting that he had filed a C.R.P. in the High Court and ho had obeyed the order of the High Court in re-presenting the C.R.P. in the District Court. One can very well sympathise with Mr. Atchuthan Nambiars attitude. But the position in law is that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in entertaining the appeal A. S. 1/1954 is without jurisdiction and as such, it has to be set aside by this Court. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on this point excepting to refer to the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Collipara Seetapaty v. Kankipati Subbayya, 20 Mad LJ 718.

    In that case the learned Subordinate Judge reversed in appeal a decision in a small cause suit tried by a Munsiff and when the matter came before the High Court in revision, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. Their Lordships of the Full Bench held that the appellate decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in that case was made without jurisdiction and in this view, their Lordships set aside the appellate judgment. Reference may also be made to the decisions in Bandiram Mookerjee v. Purna Chandra Roy, ILR 45 Cal 926 : (AIR 1918 Cal 435), Somasundaram v. Muthumanicka (Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.), AIR 1932 Mad 714, Maghi Mal v. Ganpat Rai, AIR 1936 Lah 212, Mt. Champa Debi v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1937 Pat 136, Arunagiri Goundan v. Ramaswami Pillai 1941-2 Mad LJ 537 : (AIR 1941 Mad 867) and District Board Tanjore v. Kuppuswami Konar, 1947-1 Mad LJ 303 : (AIR 1947 Mad 382).

    14. Applying these principles, it follows that the appeal A. S. 1/1954 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tellichery was incompetent and the decree and judgment passed thereon were passed without jurisdiction and that they ought to be set aside. In this view, I accordingly set aside the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellichery in A. S. 1/1954.

    15. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar the learned counsel for the respondent has pressed before me that his client was not at fault in filing A.S. 1/1954 before the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. He also pressed before me that his client should not be made to suffer by having no hearing on a C.R.P. which he had properly filed in the High Court and which would have been heard and disposed of on the merits, i the High Court had not returned the C. R. P. for presentation to the District Court, There is much force in the1 contention of Mr. Achuthan Nambiar. It is one of the cardinal principles of justice that a party should not suffer on account of the courts act or mistake. Bun the C. R. P. filed by him has become merged in the decree in A. S. 1/54 of the Sub Court, Tellicherry which I have now set aside as being without jurisdiction.

    16. But in order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court it is not necessary that a party should apply to the Court. It has been held by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Robert Fisher v. S. Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar, 20 Mad LJ 722 that the High Court can suo motu consider whether the order of the trial court requires any interference. In that case, the District Court had entertained an appeal and reversed the decision of the District Munsiff. Their Lordships set aside the decree of the District Judge as having been made without jurisdiction. At p. 725 their Lordships observed :

    "We then have the decree of the District Munsiff before us and the respondent asks us, in the circumstances of the case to satisfy ourselves whether it is right in law and if not, to make an order under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887. It is contended that we ought not to do so without an application. Section 25, however, does not require an application before action is taken. We think, we may, therefore, take the decree of the District Munsiff into consideration."

    In that case, after considering the decree of the District Munsiff their Lordships came to the conclusion that it was wrong and that it should be set aside. To similar effect is the decision in Somasundaram v. Muthumanicka, (Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.) AIR 1932 Mad 714 and Kallalagar Devasthanam Madura v. M. Baskaran Pillai, 1942-2 Mad LJ 450 : (AIR 1942 Mad 741). Both these decisions lay down that in a proper case it is open to the High Court to interfere in revision, suo motu even without any application by any party and consider the correctness or otherwise of the trial Courts order while setting aside the appellate order.

    17. In view of the fact that in this case, the respondent is not to blame, I have exercised my powers suo motu under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 and considered the correctness or otherwise of the decree against the respondent herein in S. C. S. 323/1950. After perusing the judgment and records, I do not see that the said decree requires any interference by me. As stated at the opening of the judgment S.C.S. 323/1950 was by the petitioner herein against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 144-13-3 stated to be due on dealings.

    The respondent contended that the dealings stated by the plaintiff are false. The learned District Munsiff has gone into the matter in great detail and after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, has accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and come to the conclusion that the dealings mentioned in the plaint are true. He has also given valid reasons for negativing the contention regarding the point of limitation raised by the defendant. Therefore, it follows that the decree in S.C.S. 323/50, District Munsiffs Court, Tellicherry does not require any interference by me.

    18. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the decree and judgment in A.S. 1/1954 Sub-Court, Tellicherry is set aside and the decree in S.C.S. 323/50, District Munsiffs Court Tellicherry, restored. Parties will bear their own costs in the C. R. P. and in A.S. 1/1954, Sub-Court, Tellicherry. The order as to costs in the small cause suit will stand.

    Revision allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ramunni v. Govindan
    (Jul 12, 1957)