Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed a suit for partition of joint family properties in the civil court in 1961. In that suit houses, cattle, moveables as also bhumidhari and sirdari plots belonging to the family were the subject -matter. The Petitioner were Defendants to that suit. They raised an objection that a suit for partition of bhumidhari and sirdari property was exclusively triable by a revenue court and hence the civil court had no jurisdiction to try a suit in respect of those (sic). The learned Munsif on the pleadings of the parties framed an issue on the point and held that the suit was in its entirety cognizable by him. Thereafter, on or about 5 -2 -1963, the parties entered into a compromise in pursuance of which the suit was decreed. Under the compromise plots Nos. 64 and 65 were allotted to the Petitioners. These plots were sirdari plots. When the operations under the Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced, Respondent No. 3 raised an objection that he was entitled to a half share in these two plots, on the footing that they were joint between the parties. This objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. He held that the partition decree was binding. This finding was confirmed on appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The third Respondent went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that, since the commencement of the UP ZA and LR Act the civil court had no jurisdiction to partition sirdari holdings. The decree of the civil court partitioning the impugned sirdari plots was hence without jurisdiction and void. On the basis of that decree the Petitioners acquired no exclusive rights to these plots. Hence he held that the third Respondent was entitled to a half share in these plots.
(2.) IN the present petition it has been urged that the civil court having found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was, that decision operated as res judicata between the parties. Reliance for this purpose has been placed upon Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and Ors. : AIR 1953 SC 65 where it was held that a decision in the previous execution case between the parties that the matter was not within the competence of the executing Court even though erroneous, is binding on the parties. It has also been held that a civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction vide Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. D.C. Patel : AIR 1953 SC 16. It is also settled that a Court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly. The decision of the Munsif in the previous suit as to his jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was a composite suit, hence, will operate as res judicata between the parties in the present proceedings under the doctrine of res judicata. In that situation it will not be permissible for the third Respondent to raise the question about the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain or decide the previous suit. The previous decree admittedly became final. It will continue to govern the rights of the parties. For the Respondents reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Daval v. Mst. Reoti Devi : AIR 1962 SC 287. That decision has been held to have been impliedly overruled by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Gulabchand Chhotelal Parikh v. State of Gujarat : AIR 1965 SC 1153 as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Jodhan v. Board of Revenue, 1966 AWR 743:, 1966 UPRC 312. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside. The Petitioner will be entitled to his costs.;