Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 7 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
The Partition Act, 1893
Ananda Kishore Chowdhury And Ors. vs Daiji Thakurani on 9 March, 1909
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, relies on certain decisions which he contends give the Civil Court jurisdiction in a suit of this nature. These decisions are Ananda Kishore Chowdhry v. Daiji Thakurani 1 Ind. Cas.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
Manno Chaudhry And Ramdin Singh ... vs Munshi Chaudhry on 21 November, 1917
211 and Manno Chaudhry v. Munshi Chaudhry 43 Ind. Cas. 393 : 3 P.L.J. 188 : 5 P.L.W. 97. Now the three last cases were cases where an injunction was sought against the defendants restraining them from proceeding further before the Collector in a batwara which was being made. They have, therefore, no direct application to the present case. But in any case, all that was decided was that Section 25 did not bar such a suit. The first case is the only one which deals with the maintainability of such a suit as the present. Mookerjee, J., in that decision said:
Girwardhary Singh vs Bachu Singh And Ors. on 23 November, 1909
11. And in this case, as in that case, the question is academical, because the Collector had jurisdiction to decide the question. I am of opinion, therefore, that Section 119 is a bar to the present suit. I am further of opinion that apart from Section 119, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the acts of the Collector duly performed in the exercise of his statutory powers. The Courts below seem to have lost sight of the principle of comity between Courts. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the Collector and where the Legislature has given full jurisdiction to the Collector in the matter of partition, it is the duty of the Civil Court to respect that jurisdiction.
1