Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

Siddappa S/O Bharamappa Bilagi @ Bidari vs Somawwa W/O Mayappa Bilagi @ Bidari on 29 March, 2022

"57. The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a court on merits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. The provisions akin to Section 21 are also contained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had the occasion to consider the principle behind Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [K iran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340] . In para 7 of the judgment following was laid down: (AIR p. 342) "7. ... T he policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same , namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of j ustice , and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore , that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act."
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri vs Syed Yaseen Pasha Khadri Since Dead By ... on 16 December, 2024

In Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan, the facts were that the appellant had undervalued the suit at Rs.2,950 and laid it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and on appeal it was confirmed. In the second appeal in the High Court the Registry raised the objection as to valuation under Section 11. The value of the appeal was fixed at Rs.9,980. A contention then was raised by the plaintiff in the High Court that on account of the valuation fixed by the High Court the appeal against the decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge did not lie 78 to the District Court, but to the High Court and on that account the decree of the District Court was a nullity. Alternatively, it was contended that it caused prejudice to the appellant. In considering that contention at page 121, a four Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that: (SCR p.121) "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the every authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities."
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Sri. Syed Aslam Pasha Khadri vs Sri Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri on 16 December, 2024

In Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan, the facts were that the appellant had undervalued the suit at Rs.2,950 and laid it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and on appeal it was confirmed. In the second appeal in the High Court the Registry raised the objection as to valuation under Section 11. The value of the appeal was fixed at Rs.9,980. A contention then was raised by the plaintiff in the High Court that on account of the valuation fixed by the High Court the appeal against the decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge did not lie 78 to the District Court, but to the High Court and on that account the decree of the District Court was a nullity. Alternatively, it was contended that it caused prejudice to the appellant. In considering that contention at page 121, a four Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that: (SCR p.121) "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the every authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities."
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Sri. Syed Adil Basha Quadri vs Syed Azadullah on 16 December, 2024

In Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan, the facts were that the appellant had undervalued the suit at Rs.2,950 and laid it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and on appeal it was confirmed. In the second appeal in the High Court the Registry raised the objection as to valuation under Section 11. The value of the appeal was fixed at Rs.9,980. A contention then was raised by the plaintiff in the High Court that on account of the valuation fixed by the High Court the appeal against the decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge did not lie 78 to the District Court, but to the High Court and on that account the decree of the District Court was a nullity. Alternatively, it was contended that it caused prejudice to the appellant. In considering that contention at page 121, a four Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that: (SCR p.121) "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the every authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities."
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri vs Syed Yaseen Pasha Khadri Since Dead By ... on 16 December, 2024

In Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan, the facts were that the appellant had undervalued the suit at Rs.2,950 and laid it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and on appeal it was confirmed. In the second appeal in the High Court the Registry raised the objection as to valuation under Section 11. The value of the appeal was fixed at Rs.9,980. A contention then was raised by the plaintiff in the High Court that on account of the valuation fixed by the High Court the appeal against the decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge did not lie 78 to the District Court, but to the High Court and on that account the decree of the District Court was a nullity. Alternatively, it was contended that it caused prejudice to the appellant. In considering that contention at page 121, a four Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that: (SCR p.121) "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the every authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities."
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Tulajappa And Ors. vs Subhas And Ors. on 6 March, 2002

By a careful reading of the exposition of the law laid down at paragraph (6) in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan referred to supra, the defect of jurisdiction either pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. Further in the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 104/92 between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and 11, it has been clearly held that the finding recorded in O.S. No. 61/71 on the contentious issues holding that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased 2nd defendant has been rightly set aside by the learned Civil Judge, Hubli by passing the judgment and decree In O.S. No. 4/72 wherein the finding is recorded by the said Court on Issue No. 9 holding that the suit schedule properties are not the self acquired properties and it has rightly held in answer to the said issue that the Munsiffs Court who has tried O.S. No. 61/ 71 filed by the defendants Nos. 2A, 3 and 4 has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try that original suit and further Ex.D4 the registered partition deed of the joint family property of the deceased 2nd defendant and his brothers pursuant to the said partition, the suit schedule properties came to the share of the deceased 2nd defendant and further finding of fact is recorded at paragraph 19 that all the suit properties were not purchased in the name of the mother of the deceased 2nd defendant but they were purchased in the names of different members of the joint family. For the reasons stated supra, the reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1989 (1) Kar LJ 38 : (AIR 1989 NOC 103 (Kant) referred to supra by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is misplaced. In addition to the above said documentary evidence, further documentary evidence Exs. P1, P2 and P3 which are the Revenue records showing the mode of acquisition of the schedule properties wherein all the entries made in the said documents in respect of the suit schedule properties show that the suit schedule properties came to the share of the plaintiff by Ex.D4. Further, the learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 11 has rightly placed reliance upon the Privy Council decision reported in AIR 1923 PC 57 wherein it is held that the members of the Joint family who have control over the joint estate can be blended with the property in which they have separate interest, the effect is that all the property so blended become joint family property. Further the first appellate Court has wrongly recorded the finding at paragraph 23 holding that even though the properties were the joint family properties, sale was made by the deceased 2nd defendant for legal necessity. The said issue of sale by legal necessity was neither pleaded nor proved. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the sale of the property by him in his favour was for legal necessity. Therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court is erroneous as the same is contrary to the legal evidence and based on surmises and conjectures. In view of the above said finding, the Courts below have erred in granting the judgment and decree to the full extent of redemption of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff ignoring the important, aspect of the matter that the defendants 2A to 4 have got the share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the findings on the contentious issues and points answered by the Courts below against defendants 1 and 11 and in favour of the plaintiff are not only erroneous but suffers from error in law. To that extent, the judgment and decree of the Courts below required to be modified by granting the judgment and decree of 1/4th share to the deceased 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and 3/4th share in favour of defendants 2A, 3 and 4, who are the wife and children of the deceased 2nd defendant. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Court below is modified. For the reasons stated supra, the first substantial question of law would arise in this case and the same is answered in favour of defendants 1 and 11.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Sri Munir Ahmed Quraishi vs B Venkatanarayana Setty on 9 January, 2026

NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR respect of premises governed by the Act. Once the plaintiff unequivocally admitted that the agreed rent was Rs.3,000/- per month and that the premises is situated within Bengaluru City, the suit was clearly barred by virtue of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act, thereby impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The objection in the present case goes to the root of inherent jurisdiction, and therefore, the bar contained in Section 21 CPC., has no application as the said provision applies only to objections relating to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and not to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is well settled by the Constitution Bench judgment in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (cited supra) that a decree passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and that such an objection can be raised at any stage including in appeal or execution.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt M S Anuradha vs Smt S V Ramanujamma on 9 July, 2018

36. Again reiterating the judgment in Kiran Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R Devdas - Full Document

Karnataka Lingayat Education Society vs Basagouda S/O Ramagouda Patagundi on 11 February, 2025

K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a - 18 - R.F.A.NO.1159/2006 right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, "performance cannot be forced in any other manner."
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Karnataka Lingayat Education ... vs Ashok Siddaveerayya Wadimath on 11 February, 2025

K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a - 18 - R.F.A.NO.1159/2006 right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, "performance cannot be forced in any other manner."
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next