VADRANAM RAMACHANDRAYYA Vs. SHAIK GOUSIYA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the deceased defendant who lost in both the Courts below are the appellants. The only question which is sought to be raised for the first time in the second appeal is that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as the case of the plaintiff was that the suit land had been leased out by her uncle who was managing the property on behalf of her parents to the defendant on an annual rental of 6 bags of Paddy and as such it is only the tenancy Court which is competent to order eviction but not the civil Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that this being a pure question of law touching the jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any time and the question of estoppel does not arise. He also contended that the dismissal of the eviction petition filed earlier before the Tenancy Tahsildar and also the appeal therefrom operates as res judicata barring the present suit. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court viz., Isabella Jonson v. M.A. Susai, AIR 1991 SC 993 and Chandrika v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391.

(3.) There can be no dispute as to the legal proposition that question of jurisdiction which is a pure question of law can be raised at any time and that if the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction it cannot be conferred such jurisdiction either by consent or by applying the rule of res judicata. It is also true that in such a situation a party is not precluded from raising the question of jurisdiction by any principle of estoppel. But in the instant case there is no factual basis for the application of the above principles. It is true that initially the plaintiff filed a petition for eviction against the defendant before the Tenancy Tahsildar and the same was dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff therefrom was also dismissed for default. The order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar was not brought on record and it is not clear as to on what grounds the eviction petition was dismissed. Throughout the case of the defendant has been that he was not the tenant of the plaintiff and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. If the eviction petition was dismissed by the Tenancy Tahsildar upholding the said plea and finding that the defendant was not the tenant and there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, that finding, which is a finding of fact would certainly operate as res judicata and it will not be open for the defendant to contend in the present suit that he was a tenant and as such the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Bossi Bhoi N.B. Jeeji Bhoi, AIR 1971 SC 2355, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while holding that decision on the question of jurisdiction of the Court which is a pure question of law unrelated to the right of the parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in the subsequent suit, however, observed as follows at page 2359;