TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (3) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Munsif, Sadar Purnea, for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative, for recovery of possession over the suit land, which was registered as Title Suit No. 3783 of 1964. The plaintiffs' case, as made out in the said plaint, is that the disputed lands are their ancestral properties with which the defendants had no manner of concern. During the last revisional survey, a wrong entry was made in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 against the existing conditions, who have been recorded as Bataidars. A further prayer for declaring the petitioners as the raiyats of the suit land has also been made in the plaint. 2. During the pendency of the title suit aforesaid, Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the new Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, introduced by the Bihar Act 6 of 1970, as being constitutionally invalid and expressly observed that suits pending in Civil Courts for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or recovery of possession would remain pending in Civil Courts and be triable only by them even though the entry in survey was challenged expressly or implledly. 4. In view of the declaration of this Court in the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgments of the Revenue authorities in the original suit as well as in the appeal, which were the result of the aforesaid amending provisions of Bihar Act 8 of 1970 i.e. under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taken by the parties themselves during the course of the trial or the hearing of the appeal, would not cure the defect of the jurisdiction in the said authorities. It is equally well settled that the Court trying a suit must be competent to try the same, otherwise the decision has got no binding force or effect. 5. From the above discussions, I do not feel any difficulty in holding that the judgment passed in the title suit by respondent No. 2 as well as that passed in appeal by respondent No. 1 are wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore, inoperative in the eye of law. It is also manifest that the title suit of the petitioners was transferred by the Civil Court to the Revenue authority under an erroneous impression created by the pro....