EBRAHIM ABOOBAKAR AND ANOTHER versus CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 26-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Evacce 
Evuee 
v. 
The District 
Mllgistrttte, 
Thana, 
and Others. 
Bose /. 
1952 
May 26. 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952} 
orders; and among the lesser instances given to illus-
trate the exercise of parallel governmental 
authority 
are the ones set out in the first ground, namely the 
mfliction of fines with the sanction of excommunica-
tion and boycott to ensure their payment and due 
obedience to his orders. This point has no force and 
is decided against the petitioner. 
It will not be open 
to him to re-agitate this afresh when his case is 
reheard on the remaining issues. 
All the four cases will now be set down 
for hearing 
on the remaining points which arise in them. As they 
do not involve constitutional issues they need not go 
before a Constitution Bench. 
Agent for the petitioner m Petition No. 155 : M.SK. 
Sastri for P. G. Goklzale. 
Agent for the respondents and Intervener : P. A. 
Mehta. 
EBRAHIM ABOOBAKAR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF 
EVACUEE PROPERTY. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 
Bomba)' Evacuees (Admi11istratio11 of Property) Act, 1949-
0rdinance No. XXVII of 1949, ss. 7, 24-0rder refusing to declare 
person evacuee-Whether appea/able-lnformant, 
whether "person 
aggrieved"-Right to appeal-CoHrts 
with 
limited juristliction--
Pau1er to decide facts upon which iurisdiction depends-Powers of 
an appellate court-Grant of writ of certiorari-Guiding principles. 
A writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision 
of an inferior court within its 
jurisdiction on the ground that 
the decision is wrong. 
It must be shown before such writ is 
issued that the authority which passed the order acted without 
jurisdiction or in excess of it, or in violation of the 
principle~ 
of natural justice. 
Want of jurisdiction may arise 
from 
the 
nature 
of the subject-matter, so that the inferior court might 
not have authority to enter on the inquiry or upon some part of 
' 
• 
. 
,~ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
6<Jl 
it. 
It may also arise from the absence of some essential preli· 
minary or upon the existence of some particular facts collateral 1 
to. the actual matter which the court has to try and which are 
conditions precedent to the assumption of 
jurisdiction 
by it. 
But 
once it is held that the court has jurisdiction but while 
exercising it, it made a mistake, the wronged party can only take 
the course prescribed by law for setting 
matters right 
inasmuch 
as a court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly. 
When an inferior court or tribunal which has the power of 
deciding facts is established 
by the legislatur,e, it may in effect 
say 
that, if a certain state of facts exists and is sho\Vn to such 
tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall 
have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise. 
There, it 
is not for them 
conclusively to decide whether that state of facts 
exists, and, if they exercise the 
jurisdiction without its existence, 
what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they 
have acted without jurisdiction. 
But the legislature may entrust 
the court or tribunal itself with a jurisdiction which includes the 
jurisdiction to determine 
whether the preliminary state of facts 
exists and on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do 
something more. 
In the second case the rule that a tribunal 
cannot give 
itself jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts 
to exist does not apply. 
Ordinarily, a c~urt of appeal has not only 
jurisdiction to 
determine the soundness of the decision of the inferior court as 
a court of error, but by the very nature of things it has also 
jurisdiction to determine any points raised before it in the 
nature of prelimenary 
issues by the parties. Such jurisdiction 
is 
inherent in its 
very 
constitution as a court 
of 
appeal. 
Whether an 
appeal is 
competent, 
whether a 
party has 
locus 
standi to prefer it, whether the appeal in substance is from one 
or another order and whether it has been preferred in proper 
form and within the time prescrribed, are all matters for the 
decision of the appellate court so constituted. 
An order by an Additional Custodian in a proceeding under 
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 refusing to declare a person an 
evacuee and his property evacuee property is an order under 
s. 7 of the Ordinance and is appealable under s. 24. 
A person claiming 
to 
be 
interested in an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.