Karnataka High Court
Munivenkatamma And Ors. vs Ramaiah on 15 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2001KANT292, AIR 2001 KARNATAKA 292, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1281
ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri D.S. Hosmath, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision-petition arises from the judgment and order dt. 9-9-1999 passed by the IInd Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in reference case LAC. No. 52/ 97 on LA. under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., whereby the revision-petitioners had sought their impleadment as parties, alleging that they had also got title over the land in dispute as the land was granted in favour of Ramaiah, present respondent, who is said to be the elder brother of the husband of 1st revision-petitioner, in the capacity as head of joint family. The revision-petitioners contended, in view of the above, they are also entitled to a share in the compensation. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application observing that he has no jurisdiction to decide this question. As such, the application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the applicants have come up before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners contended that Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., confers jurisdiction on the Court to implead all parties who are necessary or add all parties whose presence is necessary for proper determination of the question so as to avoid any further litigation. This should be the criteria to determine the question of impleadment. The learned counsel contended that the learned Court below in this case instead of considering this aspect, has rejected the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide that question of interest or share of applicants in land or compensation thereto. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners further contended may it be so that the Tribunal is empowered to decide the question relating to share in the land and for that the process is prescribed under the Land Reforms Act and thereunder the Tribunal, after impleadment of applicant and after he being given an opportunity of filing written statement, decide the point in question as to whether the original claimant in the compensation case was the sole tenant of the land or the land was acquired or granted in favour of Ramaiah in his individual capacity or on behalf of the joint family and that question the reference Court, no doubt, could not decide, but it has to refer to it the Tribunal and on the basis of decision of the Tribunal, it could disburse the compensation amount according to the findings and shares determined by the Tribunal. The learned counsel contended, as such, the learned Civil Judge illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.
4. These contentions of Sri Hosmath, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners, have hotly been contested by Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Sri C.B. Srinivasan contended that it is always open to the revision-petitioner to file a petition for declaration of his right as to the land before the Tribunal and as to the quantum of share therein and share in the compensation and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge has rightly refused to allow the application for impleadment as it had no jurisdiction to determine that question as to the right of the revision-petitioners in the land and the quantum of compensation.
5. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counesl for the parties.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 is circumscribed by the conditions specified in Section 115, C.P.C. itself namely, that the order impugned amounts to a case decided and that the order itself is not appealable to any Court, either to this Court or to subordinate Court and the third condition is that the order impugned suffers from error of jurisdiction namely either usurption of jurisdiction not vested or refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested or cases where the Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and from such an error has emanated injustice to the party or if the order is allowed to stand, it may have a tendency to cause injustice or irreparable loss or injury to the revision-petitioners. Keeping these basic principles under Section 115 in view, I proceed to examine. It is also well settled that if the Court taking a wrong view of law or fact, illegally refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested or exercises a jurisdiction not vested in it, a case may arise for exercise of powers under Section 115, keeping in view these basic principles of law in this regard as laid down in the case of Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi, wherein their Lordships have followed the earlier decision of the Privy Council in the case of Joy Chand Lal Babu v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury, reported in AIR 1949 PC 239.
6. In the present case, while it had to deal with the question of impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10, the Civil Court rejected the application on the ground that it cannot decide the question of title or interest in an agricultural land. That may be so. But, what law provides is that, in cases where such question does arise, the Court still has no jurisdiction as to the suit or proceedings, but in such cases, the question as to the nature of tendency in the land or interest or share in land has to be decided by the Tribunal and, therefore, the Civil Court shall stay the proceedings of the suit and refer that question to the Tribunal for decision. It means that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain that question and to allow the applicant to file objections and make a claim before it. But it shall not decide that question which can be decided by the Tribunal instead, namely, the question concerning the right of the parties as tenant or co-tenant etc. and the decision will be sought from the Tribunal. So the Court had jurisdiction to seek decision on that point. Here, in the present case, the Court could entertain the question involved, but it cannot decide and the question was necessary for making a final adjudication as to the amount of compensation and as to whom it should be payable, either it should be exclusively paid to the respondent or the revision-petitioners will also be entitled to be paid. That question will have to be finally decided by the Civil Court on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal. Section 132(2) as mentioned earlier, provides the procedure that the Court or authority shall refer that question, if such a question arises, before the Tribunal for decision.
In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the trial Court forming a wrong opinion as to the extent of bar against its jurisdiction, illegally refused to exercise, the jurisdiction vested in it under Order 1, Rule 10, by rejecting that application. The revision, as such, has got to be allowed as if the revision-petitioners are not allowed to be impleaded, the applicants may suffer irreparably and that may result in multiplicity of legal proceedings.
In view of the above, I allow the revision. I direct the Civil Court to allow the impleadment of the revision-petitioners as parties in the reference before it. Let the revision-petitioners be made as parties. They may be allowed to file their objections and claim and then the question relating to interest in the land acquired as on the date of acquisition between the parties namely, the revision-petitioners and the respondent, if requires to be adjudicated, the matter will have to be sent by the Civil Court to the Tribunal as to whether the land was granted in favour of Ramaiah in his individual capacity or it was a joint family property. But first plea has to be raised by the revision-petitioner after being impleaded. Then that question will have to be decided by competent Tribunal if needed to be referred and decided.
Subject to the above observations, the revision-petition is hereby allowed and the revision-petitioners are directed to be impleaded as parties to the reference case.