Lack of jurisdiction in decree execution cannot be cured by acquiescence when authority is not lawfully delegated.

Where execution of a partition decree is forwarded under Section 54 CPC, the power may be exercised by the Collector or a gazetted subordinate duly deputed by him, but not further delegated by a gazetted assistant to a Tahsildar. Auction proceedings conducted without such lawful authority are without jurisdiction and void. Mere participation or silence by the parties does not cure the defect, because acquiescence cannot confer power where none exists. The challenge therefore succeeded notwithstanding the parties' conduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tahsildar could validly conduct auction proceedings for execution of a civil court decree after the matter had been forwarded under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether acquiescence by the parties cured any lack of authority.

Analysis: Section 54 permits execution of a decree for partition or separate possession of an undivided estate by the Collector or a gazetted subordinate deputed by him. The authority conferred on the Deputy Commissioner could be exercised by a gazetted assistant, but there was no scope for a further delegation by that assistant to the Tahsildar. The proceedings were therefore taken by an lacking jurisdiction. Mere participation or silence of the parties could not validate an exercise of power by a person not legally vested with it, because acquiescence does not confer authority where none exists.

Conclusion: The Tahsildar's auction proceedings were without jurisdiction and void, and the challenge succeeded notwithstanding acquiescence.

---