Facts:
The facts of the case were as under: Raja Amir Hasan Khan brought a suit for possession on redemption of a three-fourths share in Kaka Khanpur. The trial court, viz., the Assistant Commissioner decreed the suit and the decree were affirmed by the District Judge of Sitapur.
The decree became final under Section 622 of Act X of 1877. On an application in revision filed by Sheo Baksh Singh, the Judicial Commissioner did not find that the first court had no jurisdiction, but found that the courts below had exercised their jurisdiction illegally and to the material prejudice of the applicant; and thereon founded the decree appealed from. Thereupon the plaintiff Amir Hasan preferred an appeal to the Privy Council.
Image Source: modernmechhvac.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Question for determination:
The question that fell for decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee was as to whether the Judicial Commissioner had under Section 622 of Act X of 1877 as amended by Section 92 of Act XII of 1879, jurisdiction in the case.
Judgment:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sir Barnes Peacock, in delivering the judgment of the Board, observed: “According to Section 21 of Act XII of 1879, there was no appeal in this case from the lower Court of Appeal to the Judicial Commissioner.
But Section 622 of Act X of 1877 enacted that the “High Court”—and in this respect the Judicial Commissioner exercised the same powers as the High Court—may call for the record of any case In which no appeal lies to the High Court if the court by which the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested and may pass such order in the case as the High Court thinks fit.
By Section 92 of Act XII of 1879 that section was amended by the insertion after the words “so vested’ the following words “or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
The question then is, did the judges of the lower courts in this case, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity. It appears that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide it. Whether they decided it rightly or wrongly, they had jurisdiction to decide the case and even if they decided wrongly they did not exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Judicial Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the case. It was accordingly held that the appeal is allowed, judgment of the Judicial Commissioner be reversed and respondents pay the costs incurred before the Judicial Commissioner and also of the Privy Council appeal.