An ex parte decree remains binding until set aside by a competent court.

The petitioners claimed to have purchased the subject plots from the sons of Sushama Bhattacharya, the original owner.

Sushama’s daughters had obtained an ex parte decree declaring their title against the sons; purchasers from the sons later challenged that decree in civil suits, which remained pending.

The daughters’ purchasers sought correction of the land records.

After the revenue authorities refused the application, the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directed the B.L. & L.R.O. to record the names of the daughters’ purchasers. The petitioners challenged that direction

1. Whether the Tribunal could direct correction of the record of rights on the basis of an ex parte decree that was under challenge in pending civil suits

2. Whether the recording of the daughters’ purchasers’ names would determine or affect title to the subject plots

The Court applied the principle that a decree remains binding on the parties to it unless and until it is set aside by a competent court; merely instituting proceedings to challenge a decree does not remove its binding effect

It also recognised that recording a person’s name in land records does not, by itself, confer or extinguish title, and that such recording may remain subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings.

The ex parte decree in favour of Sushama’s daughters remained operative and binding on the sons, from whom the petitioners claimed to have purchased.

The pending suits challenging that decree did not, without the decree being set aside, prevent the Tribunal from directing the B.L. & L.R.O. to act in accordance with it

However, the Court limited the effect of the resulting record correction: it would not itself determine title and would remain subject to the outcome of the pending civil suits.

The writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the Tribunal’s order; there was no order as to costs