BADRINARAYAN CHETLANGIA Vs. SATYA KISHORE BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of certain proceedings in execution of decrees for rent. They are directed against a decision of Sri Bikash Chandra Ghose, learned Subordinate Judge, Nadia, dated March 20, 1952.

(2.) The properties in respect of which the rent suits were instituted were patni tenures situate partly in the Indian Union and partly in Eastern Pakistan. In these rent suits, the Appellant, who was the sole Defendant, entered appearance and filed written statements disputing the jurisdiction of the court to pass decrees in regard to the rents apportionable to the properties in Eastern Pakistan. Unfortunately, when the cases came to trial the Defendant did not appear and ex parte decrees were made. It may be noted that the claims for rent in these suits were for periods subsequent to the partition of India. The claims due under these decrees for rent not having been paid, the decree-holders instituted proceedings in execution of those decrees. In these execution proceedings objections were raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor Appellant.

(3.) The first objection taken was that the court at Nadia which passed the decrees for rent had no jurisdiction to pass decrees for the entire rents claimed. It was argued by Mr. Mitter who has appeared in support of the appeal that an Indian court had no jurisdiction to decree a claim for rent in respect of properties in Eastern Pakistan. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Nilkantha Balwant Natu v. Vidya Narasinh Bharati,1930 67 IndApp 194. The question as to the effect of a lease for rent concerning properties in the Indian Union and properties in foreign territories need not, however, be gone into in this case. As I have pointed out, the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decrees was specifically challenged. The court passed eat parte decrees. On principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Goenka v. Benoy Krishna Mukherji,1953 SOR 377, it must be held that the re-agitation of this question is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. I desire to make it clear that the decision of this point in the rent suits with which we are now concerned must be regarded as limited to the claims in these rent suits. As the decision went ex parte, it cannot be suggested that the. decision was intended to operate for all time to come but was limited to the period's then in suit. The first contention raised by Mr. Mitter must, therefore, be overruled.