Summary
An objection to execution of an ex parte possessory decree alleged that the Delhi Land Reforms Act excluded civil jurisdiction. The Court rejected it because the unchallenged factual findings established that the land had ceased to be agricultural when the suit was instituted; the decree therefore suffered no inherent want of jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the possessory decree was a nullity capable of being challenged in execution because of section185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections3(13) and185, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954The jurisdictional bar did not apply to land found to have ceased to be agricultural and no longer used for purposes contemplated by the Act. (¶¶ 6, 8–9)
Held
- An executing court ordinarily cannot examine a decree’s legality or correctness. It may, however, refuse execution where inherent lack of jurisdiction renders the decree a nullity. (¶ 7)
- The findings that this land had lost its agricultural character were not squarely challenged. The section6 possessory suit did not require determination of title, and dismissal of the earlier injunction suit did not establish that the later decree was a nullity. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed without costs; objection to execution rejected for absence of any inherent jurisdictional defect.