KOOPILAN UNEEN'S DAUGHTER PATHUMMA & ORS. versus KOOPILAN UNEENS SON KUNTALAN KUTTY DEAD BY LRS. & ORS,

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 06-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
; 
-
KOOPILAN UNEEN'S DAUGHTER 
PATHUMMA & ORS. 
v. 
KOOPILAN UNEEN'S SON KUNTALAN 
KUTTY DEAD BY LRS. & ORS, 
August 6, 1981 
[A.O. KOSHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
183 
Venue-Objection to the place of suing to be entertained by AppeJlate or 
Revisional Court, condition to be fulfilled, explained-Code of Civil Procedure, 
section 21(1). 
In a suit for partition of immovable property liled in the Court of Munsiff 
Parappanangadi in the year 1938 that Court passed a preliminary decree for 
partition on tbe 18th February, 1940. The parties to the suit took no further 
interest in the matter for more than two decades. In the meantime according 
to the order ol the High Court of Kerala dated Deccmbor 22, 1956 refining the 
territorial limits of the Courts of Munsiffs functioning in district Calicut, of 
which the Court of Munsiff at Parappanaogadi was one, the suit property came 
under the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court at M·anjeri. The plaintiff 
on the !8th January, 1966 61ed an application praying that a final decree tho 
suit be passed. Defendant No. 12 immediately' took an] objection that 
the Manjeri Court had no territorial jurisdiction 10 hear the application and 
that the matter should have been agitated in the Court of Munsiff at Parappana .. 
gadi. The objection was overuled by the Manjeri Court which proceeded to 
partition the property metes and bounds and ultimatt:ly passed a final decree in 
that behalf on 9th July, 1968. An appeal filed 
~gainst the final decree by 
defendant No. 12 failed, but he suceeded before learnc'd single Judge of the Kerala 
High Court who ruled that it was only the Parappanangadi Court that had the 
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and the final decree was set 
aside. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I:!. In order that an objection to the place of suing may be 
en_tertained by any appellate or revisional Court, the fulfilment of the following 
three conditions is essential, according to the provisions contained in sub-section 
(1) of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure : (i) The objection was taken in 
the Court of first instance; (ii) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity 
and in case where issues are settled, at or before such settlement ; (iii) there has 
been a consequent failure of justice. [!SS F·G] 
I :2. In the present case conditions Nos. 1 and 2 are no doubt fully satisfied; 
but before the two appellate Courts below could allow the objection to be taken. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
it was further necessary that a case of failure of justice on~ account of the place 
H 
suing having been wrongly selected was m:ide out. Sini:e the respondents failed 
to point out even before this Court that a failure of justice had occured by reason 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] I S.C.R. 
of Manjeri having been chosen as the p1ace of suing, the provisions of sub-section 
(I) of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure made it imperative for the 
District Court and the High Court not to entertain the objection, whether or 
not it was otherwise well founded. [185 H, 186 A·CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 564 of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
the 3rd April, 1969 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. No. 266 
of 1968. 
A.S. Nambiyar for the Appellants. 
K.T. Harindra Nath, N. Sudhakaran and M.R.K. Pillai for 
Respondent'.No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment dated 3rd of April, 1969 of the High Court of Kerala 
rendered in a Second Appeal arising from a suit for partition of 
immovable property. 
2. The suit was filed in the Court of MunsiJf at Parappanan-
gadi in the year 1938. That Court passed a preliminary decree for 
partition on the 18th February, 1940 and thereafter the parties took 
no further interest in the matter for more than two decades. In the 
mean time the High Court passed an order dated December 22, 
1956 redefining the territorial limits of the Courts of MunsiJfs 
functioning in district Calicut, of which the Court of MunsiJf at 
Parappanangadi was one. 
According to that order the territory in 
which the property disputed in the suit was situated, came under 
the territorial jurisdiction of the MunsiJf's Court at Manjeri and 
it was in that Court that the plaintiff filed, on the 18th January, 
196

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