Case: Pathumma  and Ors.  Vs.  Kuntalan Kutty  Dead by Lrs. and Ors.

2. The suit was filed in the Court of Munsiff at Parappanangadi in the year 1938. That Court passed a preliminary decree for partition on the 18th February, 1940 and thereafter t he 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 Munsiffs functioning in district Calicut, of which the Court of Munsiff 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 Munsiffs Court at Manjeri and it was in that Court that the plaintiff filed, on the 18th January, 1966 an application (I.A. No. 109 of 1966) praying that a final decree in the suit be passed. Defendant No. 12 (who is now dead and is represented in this appeal by respondents No. 1 an d Ors.) immediately took an objection that the Manjeri Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the application and that the matter should have been agitated in the Court of Munsiff at Parappananagadi. The objection was overruled by the Manjeri Court which proceeded to partition the property by metes and bounds and ultimately passed a final decree in that behalf on 9th July, 1968. An appeal was filed against final decree by defendant No. 12 in the Court of District Judge before whom the objection to the jurisdiction assumed by the Manjeri Court was again taken but was repelled with the result that the final decree was confirmed.The third round of litigation in regard to question of jurisdiction took place in the High Court wherein a learned single Judge upheld the objection and ruled that it was only the Parappanangadi Court that had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application praying for final decree and that the assumption of such jurisdiction by the Manjeri Court was not justified. The objection being upheld, the final decree was set aside and there was thus no occasion for the High Court to decide the other points arising in this appeal.

Reasoning:
All these three conditions must co-exist. Now in the present case conditions Nos. 1 and 2 are no doubt fully satisfied; but then before the two appellate Courts below could allow the objection to be taken, it was further necessary that a case of failure of justice on account of the place of suing having been wrongly selected was made out. Not only was no attention paid to this aspect of the matter but no material exists on the record from which such failure of justice may be inferred. We called upon learned counsel for the contesting respondents to point o ut to us even at this stage any reason why we should hold that a failure of justice had occurred by reason of Manjeri having been chosen as the place of suing but he was unable to put forward any. In this view of the matter we must hold that the pro visions of sub- section above exracted made it imperative for the District Court and the High Court not to entertain the objection whether or not it was otherwise well founded. We, therefore, refrain from going into the question of the correctness of finding arrived at by the High Court that the Manjeri Court had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application praying for final decreeIn order that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an appellate or revisional court, the fulfilment of the following three conditions is essential:(1) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance(2) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such) There has been a consequent failure of justice.