Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 12
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can an executing court review a decree based on objections to territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the limitations on executing courts. The core issue revolved around whether an executing court could entertain objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court that originally passed the decree. The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Case Background
In 1985, Smt. Saroja Rani, daughter of the late Rai Sri Krishna, filed a partition suit seeking her 1/4th share of properties in Ranchi and Varanasi. The suit was filed in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge at Ranchi. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Ranchi court in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. On May 10, 1989, the High Court directed the Special Subordinate Judge at Ranchi to decide on the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed on June 13, 1990, granting Saroja Rani her 1/4th share. A final decree was passed on April 5, 1991, confirming the preliminary decree.
One of the defendants filed a title suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on July 22, 2003. The first respondent then filed a title suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Varanasi, which was dismissed on April 12, 2005, under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for being barred under Section 21A of the CPC. An application under Order IX Rule 13 in respect of the title suit filed at Ranchi was also dismissed as withdrawn on February 19, 2008.
During the pendency of the suit, Saroja Rani’s mother passed away. Consequently, the shares of the three sisters were modified to 1/3rd each. On December 18, 2013, the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi passed a supplementary final decree. On May 12, 2014, the appellant initiated execution proceedings of the final decree at Ranchi. On January 1, 2015, the first respondent raised an objection under Section 47 of the CPC, contending that the decrees were without jurisdiction and thus a nullity. On March 10, 2015, the first respondent challenged the decree dated June 13, 1990, in appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 9, 1985 | Partition suit filed by Smt. Saroja Rani at Ranchi. |
| May 10, 1989 | High Court of Judicature at Patna directs Special Subordinate Judge at Ranchi to decide on jurisdiction. |
| June 13, 1990 | Ex-parte preliminary decree passed, granting 1/4th share. |
| April 5, 1991 | Final decree passed, confirming the preliminary decree. |
| February 9, 1996 | Mother of the appellant and first respondent passed away. |
| July 22, 2003 | Title suit filed by one of the defendants at Ranchi dismissed for non-prosecution. |
| April 12, 2005 | Title suit filed by the first respondent at Varanasi dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. |
| February 19, 2008 | Application under Order IX Rule 13 in respect of the title suit filed at Ranchi was dismissed as withdrawn. |
| December 18, 2013 | Supplementary final decree passed, modifying shares to 1/3rd each. |
| May 12, 2014 | Appellant filed proceedings for the execution of the final decree at Ranchi. |
| January 1, 2015 | First respondent filed an objection under Section 47 of the CPC. |
| March 10, 2015 | First respondent challenged the decree dated June 13, 1990 in appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. |
| March 10, 2016 | Executing court dismissed the objections of the first respondent under Section 47 of the CPC. |
| July 15/17, 2018 | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed the impugned judgment. |
| January 7, 2019 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The executing court dismissed the first respondent’s objections under Section 47 of the CPC, stating that it could not go behind the decree. The court noted that objections to jurisdiction could only be raised in execution proceedings if the lack of jurisdiction was evident on the face of the record. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, holding that the executing court could entertain objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree. The High Court restored the objection to the file of the executing court for disposal.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined Section 21 of the CPC, which deals with objections to jurisdiction. Section 21(1) of the CPC states:
“No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled on or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”
This provision mandates that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised in the court of first instance at the earliest opportunity, and only if there has been a consequent failure of justice. The court noted that this provision indicates that an objection to territorial jurisdiction does not challenge the inherent jurisdiction of a civil court.
The Court also referred to Section 21(3) of the CPC, which states:
“No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”
The Court clarified that this provision requires objections to the local limits of the executing court’s jurisdiction to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and only if there has been a consequent failure of justice.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that an objection to territorial jurisdiction does not relate to the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court. Such an objection must be raised before the trial court and, if rejected, in appeal.
- The appellant contended that the respondent was aware of the proceedings, as evidenced by the previous title suits and applications filed by the respondent.
- The appellant argued that the objection raised in execution was a delaying tactic to obstruct the implementation of the partition decree.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that an objection to the lack of territorial jurisdiction is an objection to the subject matter of the suit and can be raised before the executing court.
- The respondent relied on the decisions in Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340] and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 791] to support their claim that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.
- The respondent argued that the property on which jurisdiction was founded at Ranchi did not belong to the common ancestor, thus the civil court at Ranchi lacked jurisdiction.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Objection to territorial jurisdiction does not relate to inherent jurisdiction. |
|
| Respondent | Objection to lack of territorial jurisdiction is an objection to subject matter. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the executing court has the jurisdiction to decide if the decree in the partition suit was passed in the absence of territorial jurisdiction.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the executing court has the jurisdiction to decide if the decree in the partition suit was passed in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. | The Supreme Court held that the executing court does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the decree in the partition suit was passed in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the trial court, and not in execution proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Territorial and Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
- Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. However, the court clarified that this principle is subject to exceptions under Section 21 of the CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.
- Hiralal v Kalinath [AIR 1962 SC 199] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of a court can be waived and does not go to the competence of the court.
- Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 791] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest opportunity.
- Hasham Abbas Sayyad v Usman Abbas Sayyad [(2007) 2 SCC 355] – Supreme Court of India: This case distinguished between decrees passed without territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and those passed without jurisdiction over the subject matter.
- Mantoo Sarkar v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [(2009) 2 SCC 244] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that a judgment is not a nullity if the court had territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction but not jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Executing Court’s Powers:
- Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v Rajabhai Abdul Rehman [(1970) 1 SCC 670] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that an executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands. Objections to jurisdiction can only be raised if the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with objections to jurisdiction.
- Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887: This section deals with objections to jurisdiction based on overvaluation or undervaluation.
- Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.
- Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with appeals from original decrees.
Authority Table
| Authority | Court | How Viewed |
|---|---|---|
| Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340] | Supreme Court of India | Explained and distinguished; held that it does not support the respondent’s case. |
| Hiralal v Kalinath [AIR 1962 SC 199] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; held that territorial jurisdiction can be waived. |
| Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 791] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; held that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. |
| Hasham Abbas Sayyad v Usman Abbas Sayyad [(2007) 2 SCC 355] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; distinction between lack of territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Mantoo Sarkar v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [(2009) 2 SCC 244] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; judgment is not a nullity if the court had territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction but not jurisdiction over the subject matter. |
| Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v Rajabhai Abdul Rehman [(1970) 1 SCC 670] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; held that executing court cannot go behind the decree. |
| Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | – | Explained and applied; objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. |
| Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 | – | Explained; objections to jurisdiction based on overvaluation or undervaluation are subject to conditions. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Objection to territorial jurisdiction does not relate to inherent jurisdiction. | Accepted; the court agreed that objections to territorial jurisdiction do not go to the root of the court’s inherent jurisdiction. |
| Appellant | Objection should have been raised before the trial court and in appeal. | Accepted; the court held that the respondent should have raised the objection at the earliest opportunity before the trial court. |
| Appellant | Objection in execution is a delaying tactic. | Impliedly accepted; the court noted that the respondent’s objection was an effort to delay the implementation of the decree. |
| Respondent | Objection to lack of territorial jurisdiction is an objection to subject matter. | Rejected; the court clarified that objections to territorial jurisdiction are distinct from objections to subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Respondent | Relied on Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340] and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 791]. | Distinguished; the court held that these cases did not support the respondent’s claim that objections to territorial jurisdiction can be raised in execution proceedings. |
| Respondent | Property at Ranchi did not belong to common ancestor. | Not addressed in execution; the court noted that this was a matter of merits to be raised in the first appeal. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court relied on:
- Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340]*: The court distinguished this case, noting that while it establishes that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, it is subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. The Court held that this case does not support the respondent’s contention that an objection to territorial jurisdiction can be raised at the stage of execution.
- Hiralal v Kalinath [AIR 1962 SC 199]*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that an objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived and does not go to the competence of the court.
- Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 791]*: The Court followed this case to reiterate that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest opportunity.
- Hasham Abbas Sayyad v Usman Abbas Sayyad [(2007) 2 SCC 355]*: The Court followed this case to highlight the distinction between decrees passed without territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and those passed without jurisdiction over the subject matter.
- Mantoo Sarkar v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [(2009) 2 SCC 244]*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that a judgment is not a nullity if the court had territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction but not jurisdiction over the subject matter.
- Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v Rajabhai Abdul Rehman [(1970) 1 SCC 670]*: The Court followed this case to hold that an executing court cannot go behind the decree.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The Court emphasized that allowing such objections in execution proceedings would undermine the finality of decrees and lead to unnecessary delays. The Court also highlighted that executing courts cannot go behind the decree. The court was also influenced by the fact that the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings and had previously filed suits and applications, indicating that the objection in execution was a delaying tactic.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. | 40% |
| Executing courts cannot go behind the decree. | 30% |
| Respondent’s knowledge of proceedings and delaying tactics. | 20% |
| Distinction between territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio Table
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 20% |
| Law (consideration of legal principles and precedents) | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The court emphasized that the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings and had previously filed suits and applications, indicating that the objection in execution was a delaying tactic.
The Court stated:
“A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts.”
The Court also noted:
“If the decree is on the face of the record without jurisdiction and the question does not relate to the territorial jurisdiction or under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to make the decree may be raised; where it is necessary to investigate facts in order to determine whether the Court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the objection cannot be raised in the execution proceeding.”
The Court clarified:
“The objection which was raised in execution in the present case did not relate to the subject matter of the suit. It was an objection to territorial jurisdiction which does not travel to the root of or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain the suit.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
✓ Objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court.
✓ Executing courts cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands.
✓ Objections to territorial jurisdiction do not challenge the inherent jurisdiction of a civil court.
✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that objections to territorial jurisdiction should not be used to delay or obstruct the execution of decrees.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the executing court to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an executing court cannot entertain objections to the territorial jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree. This case clarifies the application of Section 21 of the CPC and reinforces the principle that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest opportunity. The judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies it.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the executing court was correct in declining to entertain the objection to the execution of the decree based on a want of territorial jurisdiction. The Court clarified that such objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the trial court and cannot be raised in execution proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle that executing courts cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands.
Category
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Parent Category: Jurisdiction
Child Category: Territorial Jurisdiction
Child Category: Executing Court Jurisdiction
Parent Category: Civil Procedure
Child Category: Execution of Decree
FAQ
Q: What does this judgment mean for me if I have a court decree?
A: If you have a court decree, the executing court must implement it as it is. The executing court cannot question the territorial jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree.
Q: Can I raise an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court during the execution of a decree?
A: No, you cannot raise an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court during the execution of a decree. Such objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court.
Q: What if I believe the court that passed the decree did not have the right territorial jurisdiction?
A: You must raise this objection in the trial court at the earliest opportunity. If you fail to do so, you cannot raise it during the execution of the decree.
Q: What is the difference between territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction?
A: Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area over which a court has authority, while subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of cases a court is authorized to hear. Objections to territorial jurisdiction are treated differently from objections to subject matter jurisdiction.