# Jnanendra Mohan' Bhaduri & Anr v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti, 60

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 66
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-03-18
- **Case number:** Special Civil Application No. 371 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jnanendra-mohan-bhaduri-anr-v-rabindra-nath-chakravarti-60-5110
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Execution proceedings-Cii·cun1stances in which question of iurisdic11ion of court pt1ssing decree can be raised.
The appellant who was the landlord of certain premises in Ahmadabad, filed a suit against M for ejectment from the premises, and for
A
B
Jn order for payment of rent.
The trial court dismissed the suit in
C
~ppeal. The District Court passed a decree in ejectment and fwther
appeals
agains~ that decision \VCfe !rejected.
In proceedings filed by the appellant 'for
execution of the decree,
'NI contended that the court of Small Causes which had tried the suit
'had no jurisdiction to entertnin it as the suit premises were not governed
by Bombay Act 57 of 1947.
The cou·rt executing the decree rejected
this contention.
The order was confirmed by a Bench of the Court of
ll
Small Causes. The High Court of Gujarat in a petition filed by M under
Article 227 of the Constitution, ordered that the petition for P-xecution
be dismissed.
On appeal t0 this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be allowed and the order of the Court of
Sn1all Causes restored.
When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, \vlie-re it is passed
without bringing the Jegal representatives on the record of a person who
was dead at the date of the decree,
or against a ruling prince without
a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may
be raised in a proceeding for execution.
Again, when the decree is
made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objcc~
tion as to its validity may be raised in ac execution proceeding if the
objection appears on the face of the record : where the objection as to
F
the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the
face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and
decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised,
the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as
to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
[68 F]
In the present case the question whether the Court of Sma11 Cause~
G
had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against M depended upon the interpretation of the terms of the agreement of lease and the user to which
the land was put at the date of the grant of t1'e lease.
These questions
1
could not be peirmitted to be raised in an execution proceeding so as to
dis,,) 'ce the jurisdiction Of the Court which passed the drcree, [69 BJ
Jnanendra Mohan' Bhaduri & Anr. v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti, 60
I.A. 71; referred to.
H

## Text

V ASUDEV DHANJIBHAI MODI
V,
RAJABHAI ABDUL REHMAN & ORS.
March 18, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K, S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Execution proceedings-Cii·cun1stances in which question of iurisdic11ion of court pt1ssing decree can be raised.
The appellant who was the landlord of certain premises in Ahmadabad, filed a suit against M for ejectment from the premises, and for
A
B
Jn order for payment of rent.
The trial court dismissed the suit in
C
~ppeal. The District Court passed a decree in ejectment and fwther
appeals
agains~ that decision \VCfe !rejected.
In proceedings filed by the appellant 'for
execution of the decree,
'NI contended that the court of Small Causes which had tried the suit
'had no jurisdiction to entertnin it as the suit premises were not governed
by Bombay Act 57 of 1947.
The cou·rt executing the decree rejected
this contention.
The order was confirmed by a Bench of the Court of
ll
Small Causes. The High Court of Gujarat in a petition filed by M under
Article 227 of the Constitution, ordered that the petition for P-xecution
be dismissed.
On appeal t0 this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be allowed and the order of the Court of
Sn1all Causes restored.
When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, \vlie-re it is passed
without bringing the Jegal representatives on the record of a person who
was dead at the date of the decree,
or against a ruling prince without
a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may
be raised in a proceeding for execution.
Again, when the decree is
made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objcc~
tion as to its validity may be raised in ac execution proceeding if the
objection appears on the face of the record : where the objection as to
F
the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the
face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and
decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised,
the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as
to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
[68 F]
In the present case the question whether the Court of Sma11 Cause~
G
had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against M depended upon the interpretation of the terms of the agreement of lease and the user to which
the land was put at the date of the grant of t1'e lease.
These questions
1
could not be peirmitted to be raised in an execution proceeding so as to
dis,,) 'ce the jurisdiction Of the Court which passed the drcree, [69 BJ
Jnanendra Mohan' Bhaduri & Anr. v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti, 60
I.A. 71; referred to.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : rivi! Appeal No, 406 of
1967.
,
VASUDEV RAJABHAI (~nun, J.)
67
A
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 22, 23, September 10, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court j,n
Special Civil Application No. 371 of 1965.
B
D
E
F
. G
H
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
R. Gopalakrishnan and J. M. Thacker, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by '
Shah, J.
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi is the owner of Plot No.
15/3 of .Tamalpur Town Planning Scheme, Ahmedabad.
Since
1948 Rajabhai Munshi was a te,nant of the land at an annual
rental of Rs. 411 /-. Alleging that Munshi committed default in
payment of rent, Modi instituted a suit in the Court of Small
Causes, Ahmedabad, for an order in ejectment and for payment
of rent in arrears. Munshi deposited in Court an amount which
he claimed satisfied the liability to pay the rent in arrears. The
Court of first instance dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District
Court at Ahmedabad the order of the Court of First Instance was
reversed and a decree in ejectment was passed in favour of Modi.
The order was confirmed in a revision application filed before the
High Court of Bombay.
A petition for special leave to appeal
against that order was granted by this Court but was later vacated
when it was found that Munshi had made false statements in his
petition.
In the meanwhile Modi applied for execution of the decree in
ejectment against Munshi. Munshi raised the contention that the
Court of ~:mall Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and
its decree was on that account a nuhity. According to Munshi the
suit premises were not governed by the Bombay Rents Hotel &
Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 57 of 1947, and that in any
event Parts II & III of that Act did not apply to open land and
on that account the de_cree of the High Court confirming the decree of the District Court was without jurisdiction: The Court
executing the decree rejected the contention. An _appeal against
that order to a Bench of the Court of Small Causes was also unsuccessful.
But in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution moved
by Munshi the High Court of Gujarat (that High ·(;-i)urt having,
by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Reorganisation Act,
1960, acquired jurisdicti9n to deal with and dispose of the case)
reversed the order of the Court of Small Causes and ordered that
the petition for execution be dismissed.
With special leave, Modi
has appealed to this Court.
The ei~pression "premises" in s. 5(8) of thP. Bombay Rents
Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 57 of 194 7 does not
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
include premises used for agricultural purposes.
By s. 6 of that
Act the provisions of Part 11 which relate to conditions in which
orders in cjectment may be made against tenants and other related
matters apply to premises let for education, business, trade or
stornge.
Jt is plain that the Court exercising power under the
Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) 'Act, 1947,
has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used
for agricultural purposes. Again in ascertaining whether the land
demised is used for agricultural purposes, the crucial date is date
0n which the right conferred by the Act is sought to be exercised :
Mst. Subhadra v. Narasaji Chenaji Marwadi(').
In this case the suit for ejectment against Munshi was instituted
by Medi in the Court of Small Causes. No objection was raised
that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The objection was not raised even in appeal, nor before the High Court.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on merits : the decree was reversed by the District Court and that decree was continued by
the High Court. The objection was raised for the first t;me when
the decree was sought to be execut~d.
A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree : between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree
according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objecti<¥J that the
decree was incorrect in law or on facts.
Until it is set aside by
an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it
be erroneous is still binding between the parties.
When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed
without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling
prince without a certificate. is sought to be executed an objection
in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again,
when the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an
ex~cution poceediqg if the objection appears on the face of the
record : where the objection as to the jurisdiction_of the Court to
pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decidetl at the trial
or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing
Court will have no jurisdiction to .entertain an objection as to the
validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
In J:;.inendra Mohan Bhaduri & Anr. v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti(2) the Judicial Committee held that where a decree was pa5sed
.. upon an award made under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, an objection in the course of the execution proceeding that the decree was made without jurisdiction, since under
(l) [1962) 3 S.C.R. 98.
(2) L.R. 60 I.A. 71.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
1
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
VASUDEV RAJABHA! (Shah, J.)
69
the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, there is no provision for making a decree upon an award, was competent. That was a case in
which the decree was on the face of the record without jurisdiction.
In the present case the question whether the Court of Small
Causes had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against Munshi depend.~d upon the intepretation of the terms of the agreement of
lease, and the user to which the land was put at the date of the
grant of the lease. These questions cannot be permitted to be
raised in an execution proceeding so as to displace the jurisdiction
of the Court which passed the decree. If the decree is on the
face of the record without jurisdiction and the question does not
relate to the territorial jurisdiction or under s. 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to make the
decree may be raised; where it is necessary to investigate facts in
order to determine whether the Court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the objection cannot be raised in the execution proceeding.
The High Court was of the view that where there is lack of
inhe1.:nt jurisdiction in th.e Court which passed the decree, the
executing Court must refuse to execute it on the ground that the
decree is a nullity. But, in our judgment, for the purpose of determining whether the Court which passed the decree had jurisdic·
tion to try the suit, it is necessary to determine facts on the decision of which the question depends, and the objection does not
appear on the face of the record, the executing Court cannot enter
upon and enquiry into those facts. In the view of the High Court
since the land leased was at the date of the lease used for agricultural purposes and that it so appeared on investigation of the
terms of the lease and other relevant evidence, it was open to the
Court to hold that the decree was without jurisdiction and on
that account a nullity. The view taken by the High Court, in our
judgmenc, cannot be sustained.
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court
is set aside. The order· of the Court of Small Causes is restored.
The respondent Munshi will pay
the costs of the
appellant
ruroughout.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.