TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in Suit. O.S. No. 789 of 1973 filed in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyd- erabad. The appellant prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent and for mesne profits till the delivery of possession of the prem- ises. The case of the appellant was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the respondent was in the occupa- tion of the said premises on payment of ₹ 30 per month. The respondent had been irregular in the payment of the said rent and had been a source of perpetual nuisance. It was on this ground that the eviction of the premises was sought by the appellant. In his writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court which had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. It was held that the respondent could not be allowed to approbate and repro- bate and that he was estopped by way of pleading to take up an inconsistent plea regarding jurisdiction. On the basis of this conclusion, and other conclusions with which we are not concerned, the suit was decreed by the learned Assistant Judge in favour of the appellant. The decision of the learned Assistant Judge was upheld in an appeal filed by the respondent in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court at Hyderabad. On a second appeal preferred by the respondent, the learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that in matters of jurisdiction the question of estopp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hers v. Jagjit Singh and Another, [1979] 4 SCC 83 which took the view that the Civil Court's decision regarding lack of jurisdiction will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. In that case the Civil Court declined jurisdiction. The Civil Court took the view that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question and directed the return of the plaint for representation to the appropriate Revenue Court. When the claim was filed in the Revenue Court, the Court took the view that it had no juris- diction to try the claim. Thereupon, a suit was again insti- tuted in the Civil Court for the lame relief. This suit failed throughout on the ground of res judicata. I?he High Court affirmed the dismissal and the Division Bench of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight litigated between the par- ties, i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and the law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of proce- dure cannot supersede the law of the land. The same view has been reiterated by a Bench comprising three learned Judges of this Court in Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) through his Lrs., [1990] 1 SCC 193. We find that the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
