BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Barnala whereby he dismissed Bakhshish Singh's appeal from the decree of the trial Sub -Judge decreeing the Plaintiffs' suit. The Plaintiffs -respondents raised a preliminary objection that because of the value of the subject -matter of the appeal no second appeal was competent. By our order dated 4 -12 -1952 we accepted this objection and allowed the appeal to be treated as a revision petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: One Kehra adopted Bakhshish Singh as his son and executed a regular deed of adoption in his favour on 20th Poh 1891 corresponding to 3 -1 -1935. On Khera's death Bakhshish Singh took hold of his property including he agricultural land. The Plaintiffs who claimed to be Khera's collaterals in the fourth degree sued Bakhshish Singh for possession of agricultural land, two houses two vacant sites and for Rs. 50/ - on account of the price of cart which according to the Plaintiffs Bakhshish Singh had appropriated to himself. The Plaintiffs' position was that though Bakhshish Singh gave out that he was Khera's adopted son, in fact no adoption had taken place and in addition Bakhshish Singh being son of Khera's wife by her first husband, such an adoption was not valid according to custom. Bakhshish Singh resisted the suit on various points. He also contended that the suit was barred by time.

(3.) THE words of Section 115 limit the re visional jurisdiction of the High Court to three cases, (i) when the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, (ii) when it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested and (iii) when it has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. A good deal of case law has grown up regarding the interpretation of the section but upon one thing there is consensus of opinion namely that where a Court has jurisdiction to determine a question and determines that question, it cannot be said that it has acted illegally or with material irregularity, because it has come to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. The leading' Privy Council decisions on the subject are: - Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 Ind App 237 (PC) (A) and - Balakrishna v. Vasudeva, AIR 1917 PC 71 In the first case the following observations were made by their Lordships: