Muhammad Habibuddin vs Muhammad Waezul Haq and Others

Rowland, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit to recover rent for the years 1333 1336 of holding No. 585 in mauza Fatehjungpur. This village owing to the changes in the course of the river is now situated partly on the southern side and partly on the northern side of the river Ganges. The holding in suit is situated entirely on the southern side of the river and the suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Patna having jurisdiction over the Patna City thana in which is included police station Malsalami. The defendant took objection among other points to the jurisdiction of the Court alleging that the whole mauza belonged to thana Hajipur of Muzaffarpur District. The Munsif decreed the suit and his decision was affirmed with some modification by the Subordinate Judge.

In second appeal the defendant who has argued the case himself with some persistence challenges the finding as to jurisdiction and objects to the procedure of the Courts below in excluding from evidence a number of documents produced by him. I have admitted some of these which are public documents not requiring oral evidence to prove them in second appeal. They are directed to show that for revenue purposes this tauzi No. 11834 appertains to the Muzaffarpur collectorate. The plaintiff was permitted to put in reply his copy of the Khewat Ex. 3 and Khatian Ex. 2 referring to the disputed land. Ex. B is a chalan showing payment of a kist of revenue in the year 1911 in Muzaffarpur. Ex. D is a parwana directing the zamindars of Fatehjungpur to pay revenue in future in Tirhoot. The parwana is signed by a moharrir, is in Urdu and is dated 1869, I see no reason to doubt that it is genuine.

It refers to certain letters and notifications of the Bengal Government which however have not been produced. Khewats Exs. F and F-1 give reference to thana Patna City Malsalami and the survey map Ex. G shows the land as being in Sabalpurtola Fatehjungpur, P.S. Malsalami, thana Patna City. Plaintiff''s Ex. 1 is the entry in register D from the Muzaffarpur collectorate and refers to Fatehjungpur Pargana Haveli Azimabad Thana Hajipur in its heading, but in the column for addresses of the proprietors (Col. 8) several such addresses are entered as being Fatehjungpurdih Pargana Haveli Azimabad, Thanas Malsalami, District Patna.

The documents no doubt show that for certain revenue purposes the land in suit is associated with a tauzi of which the revenue is collected in Muzaffarpur. The fact however is not at all conclusive. It is well-known that many tauzis contain lands situated in two or more districts. In such cases the revenue authorities do not make part collection of the revenue of the tauzi in each of the districts concerned; but an order is passed directing in which district the revenue is to be paid. Therefore such a document as Ex. D is of little assistance to this defendant. The same applies to the chalan Ex. B and to Ex. 1, the extract from Register D. On the other hand, the survey map and khewat indicate that in survey and settlement the land in suit was noted to be in Patna District and these entries carry a presumption of correctness.

Ex. C is a sale proclamation issued by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Muzaffarpur and Ex. E is a copy of a; decree of the Munsif of Hajipur. Both these refer to the disputed land and show that in the proceedings referred to the Courts of Muzaffarpur District have assumed jurisdiction. The present plaintiff was no party to those proceedings. On the other hand the defendant has admitted that a proceeding between the plaintiff and himself, the land was treated as being in Patna District and decree was obtained which was affirmed on appeal. The exercise of jurisdiction over immovable property by a civil Court is not in itself a matter conclusive as to the extent of jurisdiction, having regard to Section 18, Civil P.C. Where there is a doubt as to which of two Courts has territorial jurisdiction over immovable property in suit, any of those Courts may, after recording a statement that there is ground for uncertainty, proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.

Furthermore even if such a statement has not been recorded an appellate Court will not interfere with the proceedings on the ground of the first Court not having territorial jurisdiction unless there was at the time no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to jurisdiction and there has been a consequent failure of justice. Therefore to succeed on the point of want of territorial jurisdiction, the defendant would have to show not only that the land is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif of Hajipur but that there was no ground for any uncertainty about the matter and that there has been a consequent failure of justice.

The defendant has failed to establish any one of these points and the result is that the objection as to jurisdiction fails.

At the hearing the defendants attempted to contend that the decree to be passed should not be a rent decree but a money decree; but there is no such ground in the memorandum of appeal. In the Courts below he contested the questions of area and jama but these matters are concluded against him by the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.