V APPANNAMMANAYURALU Vs. B SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is inherent lack of jurisdiction? This is the crucial question we will have to answer while deciding this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) It has arisen out of execution proceedings. The respondent has levied execution of a decree he had obtained in A. S. No. 198/73 in the District Court, Srikakulam. That appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff-decree-holder against the decision of the Subordinate Judges Court, Srikakulam which partly decreed his suit O. S. 37/72. He filed that suit on 13th of July 1972 to recover a sum of Rs. 9,300.00. While the suit was pending the Civil Courts Act was amended with effect from 1-11-1972, conferring jurisdiction on District Courts to entertain appeals against suits up to the value of Rs. 15,000.00. Until then, that pecuniary limit was limited to Rs. 7,500.00. The Subordinate Judges Court partly decreed the suit some time later i.e., on 3/07/1973. Seeking larger relief the plaintiff-decree-holder preferred A. S. No. 198/73 to the District Court, Srikakulam which modified the trial Courts decree and awarded a ;larger amount. The present appellant, who was the respondent in that appeal, did not object to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the appeal. Later the respondent-decree-holder sought to execute the decree as enlarged by the District Court in A. S. 198/73. At that stage the judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree for an amount over and above that which was decreed by the Subordinate Judges Court on the ground that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. His contention was that though during the pendency of the suit the District Courts appellate jurisdiction was enhanced up to Rs.15,000.00,The forum of appeal was pre-determined even at the time of the institution of the suit. Therefore, an appeal lay only to the High Court and not to the District Court. Consequently, the decree passed by the District Court was a nullity and could not be executed. This objection found favour with the Court of first instance. Our learned brother Gangadhara Rao, J., however, in C.M.A. No 653 of 1975 : (reported in 1977 ALT 159), overruled the decision of the trial Court and held that the decree of the District Court was not a nullity and therefore it could be executed. Our learned brother was of the opinion that the District Court did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal when it was presented before it. The judgment-debtor, aggrieved by that decision, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) Sri Ranganadham appearing for the Appellant contended that it is undoubted that the forum of appeal is fixed with reference to the date of institution of the cause and that any change in the law would not affect the right of the aggrieved person to go to that forum. The value of the suit was Rs. 9,300.00 and when it was instituted on 13th of July, 1972, the forum of appeal, as the law then stood, was the High Court. So, the decree-holders appeal to the District Court in A. S. 198/73 was wholly incompetent. He pointed out that if the law was not changed, the District Court would have had no jurisdiction at all to entertain an appeal against the decree since there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in it to entertain appeals arising out of suits of the value of more than Rs. 7,500.00. The same concept would continue to apply even if there was subsequent enhancement of the jurisdiction of the District Court. Therefore, the decree in A. S. 198/73 is a nullity as it was passed by a Court which suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain it.