TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejectment and for payment of rent in arrears. Munshi deposited in Court an amount which he claimed satisfied the liability to pay the rent in arrears. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District Court at Ahmedabad the order of the Court of First Instance was reversed and a decree in ejectment was passed in favour of Modi. The order was confirmed in a revision application filed before the High Court of Bombay. A petition for special leave to appeal against that order was granted by this Court but was later vacated when it was found that Munshi had made false statements in his petition. In the meanwhile Modi applied for execution of the decree in ejectment against Munshi. Munshi raised the contention that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used for agricultural purposes. Again in ascertaining whether the land demised is used for agricultural purposes, the crucial date is date on which the right conferred by the Act is sought to be exercised: Mst. Subhadra v. Narasaji Chenaji Marwadi, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 98. In this case the suit for ejectment against Munshi was instituted by Modi in the Court of Small Causes. No objection was raised that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The objection was not raised even in appeal, nor before the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on merits : the decree was reversed by the District Court and that decree was confirmed by the High Court. The objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where a decree was passed upon an award made under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, an objection in the course of the execution pro- ceeding that the decree was made without jurisdiction, since under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, there is no provision for making a decree upon an award, was competent. That was a case in which the decree was on the face of the record without jurisdiction. In the present case the question whether the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against Munshi depended upon the intepretation of the terms of the agreement of lease, and the user to which the land was put at the date of the grant of the lease. These questions cannot be permitted to be raised in an executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
