Appellate Court Can Examine Existence Of Jurisdictional Fact Despite Trial Court's Omission To Frame Issue On Maintainability Of Suit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that a higher court is not barred from examining the existence of jurisdictional fact merely because the trial court did not frame an issue regarding maintainability, provided no new facts/evidence are required at the appellate stage.

To this end, the Court clarified the judgments in A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 and I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani (2013) 15 SCC 27.

In IS Sikander, it was held that the decree of specific relief could not be granted if a declaration regarding the invalidity of the cancellation of the agreement was not sought.

In Kanthamani it was held that unless an issue as to maintainability is framed by the Trial Court, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable at the appellate stage only because appropriate declaratory relief has not been prayed.

In the present case, the Supreme Court was considering an issue whether the appellate court could have held the suit for specific performance to be non-maintainable since there was no declaration sought that the cancellation of the agreement to sell was invalid. The trial court had not framed any issue regarding the maintainability.

The Court noted that Kanthamani judgment had not dealt with the effect of non-existence of jurisdictional fact.

Referring to the judgment in ShrishtDhawan(Smt)v.ShawBros (1992) 1 SCC 534, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjay Karol observed :

“Should the trial court not satisfy itself that the jurisdictional fact for grant of relief does exist, nothing prevents the court higher in the hierarchy from so satisfying itself. It is true that the point of maintainability of a suit has to looked only through the prism of section 9, CPC, and the court can rule on such point either upon framing of an issue or even prior thereto if Order VII Rule 11 (d) thereof is applicable. In a fit and proper case, notwithstanding omission of the trial court to frame an issue touching jurisdictional fact, the higher court would be justified in pronouncing its verdict upon application of the test laid down in Shrisht Dhawan (supra)."

The Court clarified that “any failure or omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself cannot trim the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed, provided no new facts were required to be pleaded and no new evidence led.”

In other words, nothing restrains the higher courts from deciding the issue of jurisdictional fact to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief or not.

In the present case, no issue as to the maintainability of the suit had been framed in the course of proceedings before the Trial Court. However, after finding that the point of consideration w.r.t. readiness and willingness to perform the agreement to sell was held against the buyer, the Court didn't deem it fit to adjudicate on the same.

“In this case, even though no issue as to maintainability of the suit had been framed in course of proceedings before the Trial Court, there was an issue as to whether the Agreement is true, valid and enforceable which was answered against the sellers. Obviously, owing to dismissal of the suit, the sellers did not appeal. Nevertheless, having regard to our findings on the point as to whether the buyer was 'ready and willing', we do not see the necessity of proceeding with any further discussion on the point of jurisdictional fact here.”, the court said.

Case Title: R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS. VERSUS T.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Click here to read/download the judgment