Skip to content


Purshottam Janardan Chaphekar Vs. Mahadu Pandu Turmalkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Civil Application No. 70 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR947; 17Ind.Cas.676
AppellantPurshottam Janardan Chaphekar
RespondentMahadu Pandu Turmalkar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 3, 115-high court-extraordinary jurisdiction-high court's power to revise-mamlatilar's courts act (bom. act. 11 of 1906), section 28-possessory suit-collealor cannot reverse mtmlatdar's decision on facts.;the high court can, under section 115 of the civil procedure code, interfere with the order made by the collector under section 28 of the mamlatdar's courts act, 1906. the collector as a court, under the mamlatdar's courts act, is subordinate to the high court- the enumeration of courts subordinate to the high court in section 3 of the civil procedure code is not exhaustive.;under section 28 of the mamlatdar's courts act, the collector has no authority to reverse the decision come to by the mamlatdar upon evidence. - .....courts act, is subordinate to the high court.5. reference has been made to section 3 of the civil procedure code in which certain courts are stated to be subordinate to the high court, but that does not exclude all other courts from the category of courts subordinate to the high court.6. we think that the collector had no authority to reverse the decision come to by the mamlatdar upon the evidence. we set aside his order and restore that of the mamlatdar with costs.
Judgment:

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an application under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to set right an order by the Collector by which, upon the mere statement of the defendant before him, he took upon himself to reverse the decree of the Mamlatdar.

2. It has been objected on behalf of the opponent that this Court has no power under its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector so made.

3. The Mamlatdar's Courts Act, however, expressly constitutes the Collector (taking proceedings under that Act) a Court, and it has been ruled in The Collector of Thana v. Bhaskar Mahadev Sheth ILR (1884) 8 Bom. 264 that the Collector when exercising judicial functions is subject to the superintendence and control of the High Court.

4. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code authorizes the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and there can, we think, be no doubt that the Collector as a Court, under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, is subordinate to the High Court.

5. Reference has been made to Section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code in which certain Courts are stated to be subordinate to the High Court, but that does not exclude all other Courts from the category of Courts subordinate to the High Court.

6. We think that the Collector had no authority to reverse the decision come to by the Mamlatdar upon the evidence. We set aside his order and restore that of the Mamlatdar with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //