GURRAM VEERANNA Vs. GORRELA RAMANNA
LAWS(APH)-1969-4-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 25,1969

GURRAM VEERANNA Appellant
VERSUS
GORRELA RAMANNA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANKUMANI V. IKORAM [REFERRED TO]
DUMREE SAHOO V. JUGDHAREE [REFERRED TO]
SATYANANDARAO V. VENKATA SESHAGIRI RAO [REFERRED TO]
TUMMALA RAMAKRISHNAMMA CHODARI V. TUMMALI VENKAYAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MOULVIE ABDOOL HYE V. MAERAE [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKARARAO H. MAWLE V. HYD. STATE BANK [REFERRED TO]
BABU V. SHANMUGAM CHETTAIR [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARJI SAMALJI V. VRAJLAL BAPDAL. [REFERRED TO]
KUMARAWAMI REDDIAR V. SUBBARAYA REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
LEDGARD V. BULL [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [REFERRED TO]
GANGAGIR CHELA VS. RASAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DHRUV MEDICAL CENTRE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. VIJAY SHANKER PATEL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-1-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)(The Judgment of the Court delivered by Kuppuswami, J.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 78/61 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Eluru. He filed that suit for recovery of the plaint schedule land and for other reliefs against the respondents. The plaint was presented on 10-4-1961 in the court of the District Munsif of Eluru and the same was registered on 21-4-1961. The Principal District Munsif allotted the suit to his file and proceeded with the same. On 20-7-61 he settled the issues and posted it for trial to 30-8-61. On 30-8-61 it was adjourned to 26-9-61 and again to 9-10-61. On 15-9-61 the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1107/61 for appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the extent of the land covered by the sale deed dt. 6-12-47 in the possession of the plaintiff and the extent in possession of the defendants to the south of the plaintiff's land. A Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report. On 7-4-62 the Prl. District Mnnsif made over the suit and I. A. 1107/61 to the Additional District Munsif for disposal.
(2.)The Additional District Munsif thereafter recorded the evidence in the suit and subsequently he was posted as the Prl. District Munsif. By his order dt. 24-7-63 in his capacity as Prl. District Munsif he withdrew the part-heard suit to his file and posted it to 4-6-63 for further trial. Ultimately the judgment was delivered on 28-6-63 whereby he decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of 13 cents of land along with southern boundary of his land together with past mesne profits for two years prior to suit and futuromesne profits to be determined in separate proceedings. The defendants preferred A S. 28/64 to the Sub-Court Eluru. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, a contention was raised for the first time that the Prl. District Munsif having allotted the suit to his file and having proceeded with the hearing of the suit upto a certain point had no jurisdiction to transfer the suit to the file of the Addl. District Munsif and the Addl. District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Similarly, the Additional District Munsif after he became the Prl. District Munsif could not withdraw the part-heard suit again to his own file and continue the trial of the suits The proceedings therefore throughout are without jurisdiction. This contention was accepted by the lower appellate court. In this view, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded the suit to the Prl. District Munsif, Eluru for disposal according to law. The learned Subordinate Judge felt that it was neither desirable nor proper to express any opinion nor make any observation on the merits of the case as he was remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the Prl. District Munsif. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal against the said order of remand.
(3.)It is contended by Mr. Bapiraju on behalf of the appellant, firstly that the lower appellate, court erred in holding that the Prl. District Munsif had no jurisdiction to make over the suit to the Additional District Munsif, of that the Addl. District Munsif had no jurisdiction when he became the Prl.Dt. Munsif to withdraw the part-heard suit to his own file and dispose of the same; secondly he contended that the defendants not having raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Addl. Dt. Munsif either in the first instance or subsequently when he became the Prl. District Munsif in trying the suit, they are precluded from questioning the jurisdiction at the appellate stage. The power of a Prl. Dt. Munsif to transfer a suit from his file to that of tae Addl. Dt. Munsif is contained in Sec. 4 (A) of the Madras Civil Courts Act which is in the following terms: Sec. 4-A: When more than one Subordinate Judge is appointed to a Subordinate Judge's Court or more than one District Munsif to a Dt. Munsif's Court, one of the Subordinate Judges or the District Munsifs shall be appointed the Prl. Subordinate Judge or Prl. District Munsif and others Addl. Subordinate Judges or Additional "District Munsifs as the case may be. Each of the Judges appointed to a Subordinate Judge's court or a District Munsif's Ccurt may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Subject to the general or special orders of the District Judge, the Prt. Subordinate Judge or the Prl. District Munsif may, from time to time, make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the court among the various Judges thereof." It is argued by Mr. Bapiraju that the above Section enable the Principal District Munsif to make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution oF the business of the court among the various District Munsifs from time to time. The Prl District Munsif was therefore, entitled to make over the suit to the Addl. District Munsif at any time There is nothing in the seetion which imposes any restriction on the point of time or the stage of the soft at which he can exercise the power. On the otherhand. it is contended by Mr. Suryanarayana Rao on behalf of the respondent that the power is exhaasted once it is exercised and the Prl. District Munsif allots the case to himself and there after he is precluded from making it over to the Additional District Munsif. In any event, he contends that he cannot do so once he has Seisin of the case and much more so when he has heard the case in part He pointed out that if the section is so construed as to enable the Prl. District Munsif to transfer the suit from one Dt Munsif to another after the case is heard in part it is liable to abuse.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.