Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 1927 and Appeal against Order No. 363 of 1926.

Attorney(S)

Messrs. T. Rangachariar and Y. Suryanarayana for the Appellant.
Messrs. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar and P. Somasundaram for the Respondents.

Judges

Wallace
Jackson, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Wallace, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Curgenven, J., refusing to set aside a court sale in execution of a mortgage decree (order on C. M. P. No. 3718 of 1926 dated 6 January 1927). The principal challenge is to the jurisdiction of the Sub Court at Vizagapatam to sell the property in execution because the property was, at the time of execution, outside that Court's territorial jurisdiction. The learned Judge below dismissed the petition for a stay without dealing with the jurisdictional point.

It is undisputed that between the date of the preliminary decree in the mortgage suit and the date of the final decree, the local area in which the property lies was removed from the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court. The appeal raises whether the Court which passed the decree retains jurisdiction to sell property that has subsequently passed out of its jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in execution of a final decree, the Court which passed the decree retains jurisdiction to sell property that has passed out of its territorial jurisdiction after the decree was passed.
How the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (in particular Section 37(b), Section 38, Section 150 and Section 21) bear upon (a) the question of a court's loss of jurisdiction to execute a decree and (b) waiver of objections to jurisdiction in execution proceedings.
Whether the rule limiting a Court's power to sell to property within its territorial jurisdiction admits exceptions in the case of mortgage decrees where the mortgaged property is partly or wholly outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and, if so, to what extent.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Sub Court at Vizagapatam lacked territorial jurisdiction to sell the property at the time of execution because jurisdiction over the local area had been transferred away from that Court between the preliminary and final decree.
The appellant objected to the sale on the ground that the property to be sold was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court conducting the sale.

Respondent's Arguments (as summarized in the opinion)

The respondents' vakil contended that once a Court has passed a decree against property while it was within the Court's jurisdiction, the Court does not lose jurisdiction to execute that decree even if the territorial jurisdiction later changes (i.e., the Court which passed the decree "never loses its jurisdiction" to execute it).
It was argued that Section 37(b) of the Civil Procedure Code is ancillary to Clause (a) and applies only following an appeal and decision by an appellate Court, and therefore does not contemplate loss of jurisdiction by the original Court in the situation at hand.
The respondents' counsel also suggested that Section 150 supplies any lacuna, and that if a Court can transmit an execution application it must necessarily have power to execute the decree itself.
On the waiver point, the respondents argued (under Section 21) that because the transfer of territorial jurisdiction occurred between the preliminary and final decree and the appellant did not object to the final decree, the appellant had waived the right to object to jurisdiction in execution proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kali Pado Mukerjee v. Dino Nath Mukerjee	Referred to as a ruling that might be cited as contrary on jurisdiction/transfer issues.	The Court notes this decision has been explained in Jahar v. Kamini Devi as not involving a real case of transfer of territorial jurisdiction.
Jahar v. Kamini Devi (Jahar v. Kamini Debi)	Interpreted earlier rulings (including Kali Pado Mukerjee) with respect to transfer of territorial jurisdiction.	The Court relies on its explanation of Kali Pado Mukerjee and cites Jahar as supporting the Full Bench view taken in later rulings.
Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar	Held that if the Court which originally passed the decree had lost territorial jurisdiction, it could not entertain or transmit an execution application (earlier ruling).	The Court states that Subbiah Naicker remains good law except insofar as modified by the Full Bench in Seeni Nadan; it distinguishes that case and explains that the Full Bench modified Subbiah Naicker so that the original Court may entertain and transmit but not sell.
Veerappa Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty	Cited in support of the general proposition that a Court has no power to sell property outside its territorial jurisdiction.	The case is listed among authorities establishing territorial jurisdiction as a condition precedent to sale.
Guruswami Naicker v. Mahommadhu Rowther	Cited for the general rule that a Court cannot sell property outside its territorial jurisdiction.	Used as one of several cases cited to demonstrate the established principle on territorial jurisdiction.
Viswanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Chetty	Another cited authority for the territorial-jurisdiction-as-condition-precedent principle.	Included among the reported rulings supporting the general proposition.
Maharajah of Jeypore v. Rajah Lakshminarasimha Garu	Cited for the same general proposition concerning territorial jurisdiction and sale.	Listed as support for the territorial jurisdiction rule.
Seeni Nadan v. Muthusami Pillal (Full Bench)	Full Bench decision holding that the Court which originally passed the decree, having lost territorial jurisdiction, may entertain an execution application and transmit it to the Court having jurisdiction to execute, but may not itself sell the property.	The Court follows the Full Bench view as understood and applies it to allow transmission but disallow sale by the Court that has ceased to have territorial jurisdiction.
Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhada Debi (Full Bench) and Begg, Dunlop & Co. v. Jagannath Marwari	Full Bench rulings cited in relation to territorial jurisdiction and (in part) mortgage decrees.	Used to support the general conception that territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to sale; the Court notes that some inroads have been made by other rulings but that this Court has not extended the exception to cases where the mortgaged property lies wholly outside jurisdiction.
Tincouri Debya v. Shib Chandra Pal Chowdhury	Cited for the proposition that where mortgaged property is partly within and partly outside the Court's jurisdiction, the Court executing a mortgage decree may sell all the property (analogy to decree for specific performance).	The Court notes this ruling but expressly declines to extend that reasoning to cases where the mortgaged property lies wholly outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction; it observes that this Court has not laid down such an extension.
Shaikh Abdul Hadi v. Mt. Kabultunnissa (Patna High Court)	Patna High Court ruling cited similarly for allowing sale of all mortgaged property when part lies outside jurisdiction.	The decision is noted as supporting the limited inroad into the general principle for partly extraterritorial mortgages, but the Court does not accept extending the principle to wholly extraterritorial mortgages.
Anujan Raja v. Ananthanarayana Ayyan	Cited as a Bench of this Court that adopted the Full Bench view permitting transmission to the court having territorial jurisdiction.	The Court treats this case as supporting the Full Bench view and follows it.
Udit Narain Chaudhuri v. Mathura Prasad	Referenced as another authority consistent with the Full Bench view on transmission.	The Court cites it as support for adopting the Full Bench approach.
Venhatramani v. Narayanasami Ayyar	Cited for the proposition that Section 21 applies to execution proceedings.	The Court acknowledges this line of authority but distinguishes waiver before final decree from the right to object to sale in execution when the property is outside territorial jurisdiction.
Chokkalinga Pillay v. Velayudha Mudaliar	Also cited for the principle that Section 21 applies to execution proceedings.	The Court treats these cases as establishing that Section 21 applies in execution, but limits the effect of waiver where the legal premise (that the original court always retains execution jurisdiction) is rejected.
Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty	Cited that a judgment-debtor is barred from pleading in execution proceedings that the final decree was passed without jurisdiction.	The Court accepts that the appellant cannot contend that the final decree itself was passed without jurisdiction, but distinguishes that from objecting to sale of property outside territorial jurisdiction in execution.
Rajagopala Pandaratthiar v. Tirupathia Pillai	Discussed in relation to application of Section 21 where transfer of jurisdiction happened while execution was pending and objections were not taken promptly.	The Court distinguishes that case by its facts (transfer during execution and failure to raise objection promptly) and does not adopt its broader application to all mortgage cases.
Masey v. Steel & Co.; Gopi Mohan Roy v. Doybaki Nundun Sen	Cited (along with Tincouri Debya) as Calcutta High Court authorities relied upon to limit territorial jurisdiction rules in mortgage cases where part of property remained within jurisdiction.	The Court notes these authorities but observes they apply where part of property remains under the original Court's jurisdiction; they do not decide cases where the property is wholly outside jurisdiction.
Kartick Nath Pandey v. Tilukdhari Lull	Cited by other Judges but said to have been practically overruled by the Full Bench in Prem Chand Dey.	The Court declines to follow any extension suggested by that decision in the face of Full Bench authority.
Prem Ghand Dey v. Mokhada Debi (alternate spelling of Prem Chand Dey)	Full Bench authority concerning mortgage decrees and territorial jurisdiction.	The Court relies on the Full Bench approach and does not accept arguments that would extend execution power to Courts which have ceased to have territorial jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court frames the problem as a conflict between two irreconcilable principles extracted from prior authorities:

Principle A: A Court that ordinarily has no power to sell property outside its territorial jurisdiction cannot acquire that power merely because it passed the decree while the property was within its jurisdiction (i.e., a Court should not have greater powers at a later stage of a suit than at the beginning).
Principle B: When a Court has once obtained jurisdiction over property it cannot lose it later (i.e., the Court which passed the decree retains jurisdiction to execute it forever).

The judge (Wallace, J.) expresses a preference for Principle A on pragmatic grounds, observing the practical difficulties that would follow from Principle B: concurrent and potentially conflicting executions, simultaneous sales, and parallel inquiries in different Courts under the same decree.

The Court then examines statutory provisions. It reasons that acceptance of Principle B would render the contingency in Section 37(b) of the Civil Procedure Code ("Court of first instance losing its jurisdiction to execute a decree") inconceivable and therefore meaningless. The phrase "Court of first instance" is interpreted as referring to the Court which originally passed the decree; to hold that such a Court never loses jurisdiction would contradict the structure and apparent purpose of Section 37(b).

The respondents' reliance on Section 150 as covering any lacuna is rejected because Section 150 expressly deals with transfers from a Court and not with a Court ceasing to exist. Thus, the Court concludes the Code does not authorize the idea that a Court that originally passed a decree never loses its jurisdiction to execute it.

The Court further notes that if the proposition that the original Court retains execution jurisdiction were pressed to logical conclusion, it would absurdly imply that the Court to which territorial jurisdiction has been transferred would have no jurisdiction to execute — a result not supported by prior rulings and inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

On authorities, the Court synthesizes precedent: the prevailing rule is that territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a Court's power to sell property (citing multiple decisions). Some rulings have allowed a limited inroad in mortgage decree cases where part of the mortgaged property remains within the Court's jurisdiction (analogies to specific performance), but this Court has not extended that reasoning to permit sale where the mortgaged property lies wholly outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction.

The Court accepts the Full Bench view in Seeni Nadan v. Muthusami Pillai (and related approvals in a Bench in Anujan Raja and Jahar v. Kamini Debi) that when territorial jurisdiction over the property passes from the Court which passed the decree to another Court between decree and execution, the original Court may still entertain an execution application and transmit it to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to execute, but the original Court has no power to sell the property itself.

As to the argument based on Section 21 (waiver), the Court acknowledges authorities that Section 21 applies in execution proceedings but distinguishes between waiver of objections to jurisdiction prior to the passing of a final decree and objections to sale in execution when the property is outside territorial jurisdiction. The Court holds that waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction before the passing of the final decree does not imply waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction in execution proceedings with respect to a sale of property outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction. The appellant is, however, barred from pleading that the final decree itself was passed without jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; SALE STAYED AND ORDER FOR SALE CANCELLED

Holding:

The Court holds that the Sub Court did not have jurisdiction to sell the property in execution because, at the time of execution, the property lay wholly outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court follows the Full Bench view that the Court which originally passed the decree may entertain an execution application and transmit it to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to execute the decree, but it may not itself effect a sale of property outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Immediate consequences (direct effects on the parties and proceedings):

The order of the learned Judge below is set aside and the sale is stayed.
C. M. A. No. 363 of 1926 is allowed and the order for sale is cancelled.
The E. P. No. 25 of 1925 of the Sub Court is to be regarded as an application to transmit for execution to the Court having jurisdiction to sell and will be dealt with by that Court accordingly.
The appellant is awarded his costs in the appeal (including one vakil's fee).
No order was necessary on C. M. P. No. 300 of 1927 (as stated in the opinion).

Broader implications: The decision follows and applies existing Full Bench authority rather than announcing a novel rule. It emphasizes that territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a Court selling property in execution and clarifies application of procedural provisions (Sections 37(b), 38, 150 and 21) in the context of changed territorial jurisdiction, but it does not purport to extend previously recognized inroads (for partly extraterritorial mortgaged properties) to cases where the mortgaged property is wholly outside the Court's jurisdiction.

Disposition: Appeal allowed. (Jackson, J. concurred without further comment.)

Show full summary ...

Sri Rajah Satrucherla Sivaskanda Raju Bahadur Gard In Both Cases. v. Srt Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo Maharajulam Garu Rajah Op Jeypore And Others

Wallace, J. — This Letters Patent Appeal is against the decision of Curgenven, J., in the matter of an order by him on C. M. P. No. 3718 of 1926 dated 6th January, 1927 refusing to set aside a Court sale in execution of a mortgage decree against the appellants. The chief point raised is a question of the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Vizagapatam, to sell the property in execution as the property is not within its territorial jurisdiction. The learned Judge has not dealt with this point, but has merely dismissed the petition for stay.

It is not in dispute that between the date of the preliminary decree in the mortgage suit and the final decree the local area in which this property lies was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Sub Court. The question for decision is whether in execution of the final decree the Court which passed the decree retains jurisdiction to sell the property which has passed out of its jurisdiction. This is a vexed question which has been the subject of a large number of decisions in this Court and in the Calcutta High Court. It is quite clear from the authorities in these rulings that there are two main principles of decision which are inherently irreconcilable. The first is that a Court which ordinarily has no power to sell property outside its local jurisdiction cannot gain that power merely because it has passed the decree against that property while it was within its jurisdiction; that is, there is no reason why a Court should have greater powers over property at a later stage of a suit than it had at the beginning; and the second principle is that when a Court has once got jurisdiction over property it cannot lose it. I incline to the former principle in view of the practical difficulties which will attend the acceptance of the latter. The latter view, clearly to my mind, implies that the Court which passed the decree never loses its jurisdiction to execute that decree and the learned vakil for the respondents goes so far as that. I shall consider the effect of that proposition from two points of view, first, whether the provisions of the Code bear it out, and second, as to the practical difficulties in working.

As to the first point, if the Court which passes the decree never loses its jurisdiction to execute it, then the contingency provided for in Sect. 37 (b) Civil Procedure Code of the Court of first instance losing its jurisdiction to execute a decree could not have been contemplated at all. The phrase, ‘Court of first instance’ there is obviously used in the sense of the Court which originally passed the decree—compare the use of the same phrase in Cl. (a)—and was probably used to avoid employing in the definition of the phrase ‘Court which passed the decree’ the very phrase which was being defined and also perhaps to exclude by using that phrase, a Court of intermediate appeal. The respondents' vakil argues that Sect. 37 (b) is only ancillary to (a) and is brought into operation only when there has been an appeal and a decision by the appellate Court. I cannot accept that contention which would amount to saying that the Code has made no provision for the case of the execution of a decree which has not been appealed against when the Court which originally passed the decree has ceased to exist. The learned vakil refers us to Sect. 150 to explain this lacuna. But apart from the improbability of the Legislature relegating to a different part of the Code aspects of the problem which was before them when Sect. 37 was drawn up, Sect. 150 in terms only applies to cases of transfer from a Court and not to cases of a Court ceasing to exist. I am of opinion therefore that the Code does not authorize the idea that a Court which originally passed a decree never loses its jurisdiction to execute it. Pressed to its logical conclusion, this argument would mean that the Court to which territorial jurisdiction has been transferred has no jurisdiction to execute, because the contingency which gives it jurisdiction to execute, namely, the ceasing of jurisdiction in the Court which originally passed the decree, will never occur. It has never been yet held, so far as I know, that the Court to which territorial jurisdiction has been transferred does not have jurisdiction to execute the decree. A ruling which might be cited to the contrary, viz., Kali Pado Mukerjee v. Dino Nath Mukerjee(1) has been explained in Jahar v. Kamini Devi(2) to be not a real case of transfer of territorial jurisdiction. In most of the reported rulings under this Cl. 37 (b) it has been taken almost for granted that the usual case to which the phrase “has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute it” applies is the case where between the date of decree and the date of execution application and territorial jurisdiction over the property has passed from the Court of original trial to another Court.

The practical difficulties of holding the proposition are, that, by force of Sect. 37 itself and Sect. 38, two Courts at least would have concurrent powers to execute the same decree, and simultaneous executions, simultaneous sales, simultaneous enquiries into claim petitions, and so on, under the same decree would be going on in different Courts. The difficulties of that procedure far outweigh any hardship in asking the decree-holder to go for execution and Court sale to a Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the property even when it was not the Court which originally passed the decree.

The proposition generally laid down in the reported authorities is that a Court has no power to sell property outside its territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the Court selling the property—see Subbiah Naicker…(Second Counter-Petitioner) v. Ramanathan Chettiar…(Petitioner) .*(3), Veerappa Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty(4), Guruswami Naicker v. Mahommadhu Rowther(5), Viswanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Chetty(6) and Maharajah of Jeypore v. Rajah Lakshminarasimha Garu(7) and the same conception underlies the Full Bench decision in Seeni Nadan v. Muthusami Pillal(8). See also the Full Bench decision in Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhada Debi and Begg, Dunlop & Co v. Jagannath Marwari(9). Some inroad on that general proposition has no doubt been made by rulings which have held that, where the Court is executing a mortgage decree for sale, and the property under mortgage is partly within and partly without its territorial jurisdiction, the Court has power to sell all the property. That has been allowed on the footing that the execution of a mortgage decree for sale is analogous to a decree for specific performance—See Tincouri Debya v. Shib Chandra Pal Chowdhury(10) and a ruling of the Patna High Court reported in Shaikh Abdul Hadi…Petitioner v. Mt. Kabultunnissa…Opposite Party .(11). So far however that proposition has not been laid down in any ruling by this Court and no ruling has gone so far as to lay down that when the property in the mortgage decree lies wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court can sell the property in execution of the mortgage decree for sale, and I am not, as at present advised, prepared to make this further inroad on the general principle. Sect. 37 however does not forbid the view laid down in the Full Bench case in Seeni Nadan v. Muthuswami Pillai that though the Court which originally passed the decree has no jurisdiction to execute it because of the transfer of territorial jurisdiction, it has power to entertain an execution application and transmit it to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to execute it. On this point respondents' vakil contends, fisrt, that, if that is what the Full Bench decides, the decision was otiose, because no one doubts that the court which passed the decree has power to transmit it for execution to the Court having jurisdiction to execute, and second, that the Full Bench case really implies that the Court which originally passed the decree, has not lost its power to execute it; that is, if it has power to transmit, it must also have the power to execute. As to the first contention the decision was necessary because a decision in Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar had laid down that if the Court which originally passed the decree had lost territorial jurisdiction, it could not even entertain and transmit an execution application. As to the second contention, while the judgment of the late Chief Justice may be taken to go so far as the learned vakil wants, those of the other two Judges quite clearly do not and it is noteworthy that Subbiah Naicker…(Second Counter-Petitioner) v. Ramanathan Chettiar…(Petitioner) .* was not overruled by the Full Bench. The case in Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar therefore remains good law except in so far as it has been modified by the Full Bench ruling. That is, the net result is that when the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree is taken away between the stage of the decree and execution, it has power to entertain an execution application for transmission to the Court having territorial jurisdiction but has no power to sell the property. It is to the convenience of decree holders, and there is nothing in the Code to prohibit it, that they should be able to apply in execution to the Court where they obtained their decree, and should not have to hunt about to find out whether or not the territorial jurisdiction has been in the interval taken away from that court. The latter court will know best whether or not it has territorial jurisdiction and if it has not, will transfer the decree for execution to the court, having such jurisdiction. The Full Bench view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in Anujan Raja v. Ananthanarayana Ayyan and this is also the ratio decidendi of Jahar v. Kamini Debi; see also Udit Narain Chaudhuri v. Mathura Prasad. I therefore in this case follow the Full Bench view as I understand it to be and as I have set it out above.

The next point urged by the respondent relates to the application of Sect. 21 Civil Procedure Code. That the principle of Sect. 21 applies also to execution proceedings has been laid down in several rulings of this Court—see Anujan Raja v. Ananthanarayana Ayyan, Venhatramani v. Narayanasami Ayyar and Chokkalinga Pillay v. Velayudha Mudaliar. The argument here is that as the transfer of territorial jurisdiction was between the passing of the preliminary decree and the passing of the final decree, and as the appellant made no objection to the passing of the final decree, he has waived his right to object to the jurisdiction. Such a contention might be upheld if it was a matter of law that the Court which originally passed the decree always has the right to execute it. But I have held that that is not the law. Waiver of a right to object to jurisdiction before the passing of the final decree will not therefore imply a waiver of the right to object in execution proceedings to a sale of the property. The appellant is no doubt barred from pleading in execution proceedings that the final decree was passed without jurisdiction—see Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty; but in my view he is not barred from pleading that the Court has no right to sell in execution property which is not within its territorial jurisdiction. The view of one of the learned Judges in Rajagopala Pandaratthiar v. Tirupathia Pillai has been pressed upon our attention. Now in that case the transfer of territorial jurisdiction was made while the execution proceeding was pending, and the objection regarding this jurisdiction was not taken in these proceedings at the earliest opportunity. Hence Sect. 21 was applied and it was held that the judgment-debtor could not take such objection at a later stage. This is the ground on which Madhavan Nair, J., disposed of the case. But Venkatasubba Rao, J., while giving that ground also as one of the grounds for dismissal of the appeal, in itself a sufficient ground for doing so went into other grounds namely, that the rule about territorial jurisdiction does not apply to the execution of mortgage decrees, and he relied on certain Calcutta cases, without however considering the Full Bench case in Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhada Debi which is also a case of a mortgage decree. So that the observation of the learned Judge that the decisions of the Calcutta High Court on this point have been uniform does not appear to be just The cases in Masey v. Steel & Co., Gopi Mohan Roy v. Doybaki Nundun Sen and Tincouri Debya v. Shib Chandra Pal Chowdhury on which he relies are cases in which part of the mortgaged property still remained under the jurisdiction of the Court which originally passed the decree and Kartick Nath Pandey v. Tilukdhari Lull on which he also relies was practically overruled by the Full Bench in Prem Ghand Dey v. Mokhada Debi I am not therefore prepared to follow the learned Judge in holding that in all cases of mortgage decrees not merely cases in which part of the property is still within the jurisdiction of the Court but also cases in which the property is wholly outside its jurisdiction the Court which originally passed the decree retains jurisdiction to sell in execution. I am of opinion that Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar so far as it lays down the opposite of this proposition has not been overruled by the Full Bench case in Seeni Nadan v. Muthusami Pillai. I hold therefore that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to sell the property in execution and that the sale cannot therefore go on.

I would set aside the order of the learned Judge and direct that the sale be stayed. The C. M. A. No. 363 of 1926 is also allowed and the order for sale is cancelled. The E. P. No. 25 of 1925 of the Sub Court will be regarded as an application to transmit for execution to the Court having jurisdiction to sell and will be dealt with by that Court as such. No order necessary on C. M. P. No. 300 of 1927. The appellant will get his costs in this appeal and C. M. A. (one vakil's fee).

Jackson, J.—I agree and have nothing to add.

K.V.SAppeal allowed.

Sri Rajah Satrucherl... v. Srt Sri Sri Ramachan...