Sri Manik Das vs Sri Babul Debnath
2021 Latest Caselaw 332 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 4




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                      RSA NO.42 OF 2018
1. Sri Manik Das,
2. Sri Dulal Das,
Both sons of late Prafulla Das,
3. Sri Khokan Basak,
Son of late Mano Ranjan Basak,
All resident of East Harina, P.S. & P.O. Sabroom,
District: South Tripura
                                             -----Appellant(s)
                  Versus
1. Sri Babul Debnath,
Son of late Sudhangshu Debnath,
Resident of village & P.O Rajnagar,
P.S. P.R. Bari, Sabroom,
District : South Tripura
                                -----Plaintiff-respondents(s)

2. The State of Tripura, represented by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura District, Belonia, South Tripura, Tripura.

3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom Sub-Division, P.O. Sabroom, District : South Tripura.

-----Proforma defendant-respondents(s)

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None Date of hearing & delivery of judgment & order : 15.03.2021 Whether fit for reporting : No

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)

Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants. None appears for the

respondents.

2. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has

urged to formulate an additional substantial question of

law.

3. After hearing Mr. Daschoudury, learned counsel,

in my opinion also, the following additional substantial

question of law should be formulated, and, it is formulated

thus:

"Whether the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabroom, South Tripura has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in view of his finding that "However it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff that the suit land is 5 kanis 9 gandas and the rate of the suit land as per exhibit 3 is fifty five thousand per kani. It is trite that there is a presumption towards jurisdiction and the said can be corrected by paying the remaining court fees in view of the provisions of the court fees act."

4. A plain reading of this finding of the learned trial

Court makes it clear that at the time of delivering the

judgment, the learned trial Court came to a clear finding

that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. It is settled law that the question of jurisdiction

goes to the root of the case, and if the Court passes a

decree having no jurisdiction, the judgment and decree

passed by the same Court is a nullity in the eye of law.

Unfortunately, the learned first appellate Court

also did not notice of this admitted position that the learned

trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. Since the question of jurisdiction goes to the

root of the case and makes the decree a nullity, I set aside

the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2015 and

29.08.2015 respectively, passed by the learned Civil

Judge(Jr. Division), Sabroom, South Tripura, in T.S. No.06

of 2013, and also the judgment and decree dated

08.01.2018 and 11.01.2018 respectively, passed by the

learned first appellate Court in TA No.07 of 2015, and

return the plaint to the appropriate Court, having

jurisdiction to try the suit.

7. Having receipt of the order of this Court and the

records therein, the learned Court below shall return the

plaint to the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction

to try the suit.

JUDGE