Skip to content


Hiramati Dassya Vs. Annada Prasad Ghosh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.788
AppellantHiramati Dassya
RespondentAnnada Prasad Ghosh and ors.
Cases ReferredShamsunder Saha v. Anath Bandhu Saha
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - transfer of proceedings which are without jurisdiction, if valid--mesne profits exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of court, decreeing suit, application for--decreeing court, jurisdiction of--remedy. - .....there is no question now that the munsif had full jurisdiction to decide the original suit with mesne profits claimed up to the date of the institution of suit, which amounted to a gross valuation of rs. 1,200. there is also no doubt that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon mesne profits pendente lite and thereafter up to the date of delivery, inasmuch as those mesne profits are said by one party to amount to rs. 3,000, and by the other to over rs. 10,000, and the special pecuniary jurisdiction of the munsif is limited to rs. 2,000. something, therefore, must be done to enable the decree-holder to have the full benefit of the decree so far as he is entitled to it; and the only question seems to be whether we should follow the procedure adopted by a bench of this court in the.....
Judgment:

1. We think that the proper way of dealing with this matter is to treat it precisely in the same manner as this Court treated a similar application in the case of Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarti v. Purna Chandra Boss 8 Ind. Cas. 34; 13 C.L.J. 132; 15 C.W.N. 506. There is no question now that the Munsif had full jurisdiction to decide the original suit with mesne profits claimed up to the date of the institution of suit, which amounted to a gross valuation of Rs. 1,200. There is also no doubt that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon mesne profits pendente lite and thereafter up to the date of delivery, inasmuch as those mesne profits are said by one party to amount to Rs. 3,000, and by the other to over Rs. 10,000, and the special pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif is limited to Rs. 2,000. Something, therefore, must be done to enable the decree-holder to have the full benefit of the decree so far as he is entitled to it; and the only question seems to be whether we should follow the procedure adopted by a Bench of this Court in the case of Rameswar Mahton v. Dilu Mahton 21 C. 550, or the more recent decision to which we have already referred. That the order of the learned District Judge in the Court below transferring the case to the Subordinate Judge is incompetent there can be no doubt on the principle which is laid down in the case of Shamsunder Saha v. Anath Bandhu Saha 6 Ind. Cas. 97; 37 C. 574; 14 C.W.N. 662. Proceedings which are without jurisdiction are not proceedings which can be transferred either under the old Code or the new. We cannot now say that the Munsif had jurisdiction to ascertain and decree mesne profits which are in excess of Rs. 2,000, nor can we remove from the cognizance of the Munsif the decree which has already determined the possession and mesne profits antecedent to suit, That must remain with the Munsif and must be confined to the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction. But the proper course to follow with regard to the assessment of mesne profits from the institution of the suit to the date of delivery of possession is to direct the return of the plaint or application for mesne profits subsequent to suit for presentation to the proper Court, that is, the Court of the Subordinate Judge.

2. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in these terms and the execution case will be returned at once to the Munsif's Court for carrying out the order.

3. We make no order as to costs.


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