Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Court of Small Causes had inherent jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment and mesne profits on the plaint allegations, and whether consent or acquiescence of the parties could validate the decree passed by a court lacking such jurisdiction.
Analysis: The nature of the suit had to be determined from the plaint. On the pleadings, the plaintiff treated the defendants as unauthorised occupants and there was no subsisting lessor-lessee relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, read with Article 4 of the Second Schedule as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, a suit for possession of immovable property remained excluded from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, save for the limited exception of a lessor suing a lessee after determination of the lease. The Court held that where the court lacks inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter, consent, acquiescence, or waiver cannot confer jurisdiction, and a decree so passed is a nullity.
Conclusion: The Court held that the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, the decree was a nullity, and the revision was entitled to succeed.