EKNATH Vs. JIVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition in the course of proceedings to prevent breach of peace under Section 148, Hyderabad Criminal P.C. corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Code. The proceedings were instituted on 95-5-1949 in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate Naldrug & the disputed land is situtated in the village Kowtali. During the pendenoy of the proceedings, the village was transferred to the province of Bombay in pursuance of the India Hyderabad (Exchange of Enclaves)' Order, 1950 as from 25 1-1950. Inspite of the said transfer, the Munsiff-Magistrate Naldrug continued to exercise jurisdiction & on 30-12-1960 directed possession of the property to be given to the first party. The respondent (sic.) demurs & has come in revision. His legal contention is that by reason of the transfer of the said tillage to the Bombay State, the Munsifi- Magistrate ceased to have jurisdiction & it is the Bombay Court having territorial jurisdiction over the land in dispute that should have heard & decided the case. The respondent relies on a ruling of the Division Bench of this High Court reported in State of Hyderabad v. Chander A.I.R. (37) 1950 Hyd. 71 : 1951 Hyd. L. R. 291.

(2.) In that case an accused was facing trial in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate Naldrug for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 272, Hyderabad Penal Code, corresponding to Section 332 of the Indian Code, alleged to have been committed in village Deogaon. The Munsiff- Magistrate made a reference to the High Court whether, after the promulgation of the India-Hyderabad (Exchange of Enclaves) Order, 1950, which came into force on 25-1-1950, by which the said village Deogaon was transferred to Bombay State, he continued to have jurisdiction to try the accused. Their Lordships held that the Munsiff. Magistrate Naldrug continued to have jurisdiction, on the ground that in the absence of clear intention to the contrary the transfer of the territory did not affect the vested jurisdiction of the Magistrate, in the territory transferred, in a case pending before him at the time of the transfer & he continued to exercise the same even after the transfer of the territory; & that no such contrary intention appears either from Section 7 or its proviso read with Section 6, General Clauses Act, or any other provision of the said Order. The learned Judges proceed: Presumably the accused is still in the custody of the Court & because of the personal jurisdiction also over the accused, the case can be continued. The ruling is, however, distinguishable on the ground that it relates to the exercise of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, whereas in the present case the proceedings being under Section 148, Hyderabad Criminal P.C. corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Code viz., the exercise of jurisdiction relates to immoveable property. The ruling has no application to the present case.

(3.) To determine whether an enactment takes away the jurisdiction of a Court in a pending action before it, one has to consider not only the enactment in question but also the cumulative effect of the entire law applicable to that pending action.