ASHO DEVI versus DUKHI SAO & ANR.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 08-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
Cl 
D 
E 
-ii 
F 
• 
G 
• 
H 
r 
ASHO DEVI 
v. 
DUKHI SAO & ANR. 
August 8, 1974 
611 
[P. }AGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J 
Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, Clause 10-Appeal under-Froni 
Judg1nent of single Judge of the High Court in first appeal-Restrictions imposed 
by S. 100, Code of Ci11if Procedure, 1908, whether applicable-Held, appeal lies on 
both questions of fact and of law. 
The plaintiff/appellant filed a money suit against the defendant for recovery of 
Rs. 7 865 ·70 due from him on account of sale of grains and Rs. 1,512 ·90 as interest. 
The defendant admitted the purchase of grain but denied stipulation of interest 
contending that he had borrowed Rs. 6,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage of 
the grand-daughters at the rate of 12 annas per ~undred per month. The trial Co~rt, 
after considering the evidence, decreed 'the suit. In a first appeal to the High 
Court the single Judge allowed it and reversed the judgment and decree of the 
trial ~ourt. Against this judgment of the single Judge the plaintiff preferred a 
Letters Patent Appeal. The question, whether a Bench of the High Court in an 
appeal from the judgment ~f a single Judge of that ~ourt in ~ first ~ppeal could 
consider all matters which a stngle Judge could have decided and is not hm1ted by the 
restrictions imposed bys. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was referred to a Full 
Bench. By majority, the Full Bench held that the findings of fact by the Single Judge 
are binding on them and they cannot go into those questions in a Letters Patent 
Appeal. 
On appeal by certificate, this Court set aside the judgment of the full Bench 
of the High Court and 
HELD: (i) The lin1itations on the power of the Court imposed by Ss. 100 and 
101 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable to an Appellate Court 
hearing a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of that High 
Court in a first appeal from the judgment and decree of the Court subordinate to the 
High Court, for the simple reason that a single Judge of the High Court, is not a 
Court subordinate to the High Court. In view of the decision of this Court in 
Alapati Kasi Viswanathan v. A. Sivara1na Krishnayya and others and the consi-
stent view held by almost all the High Courts on the question under consideration, 
this appeal must succeed.[613 C, G; 614 BJ 
A/apati Kasi Viswanathan v. A. Sivara111a Krishnayya and Ors. C. A, No. 
232 
of 1961 decided on January II, 1963 followed. 
Ladhi Prasad Jaiswal v. Karna! Distillery Co. Ltd. and others [1964J 1 S.C.R. 270, 
applied . 
Umrao Chand v. Bindraban Chand I.L.R. 17, AIL 475 ; Mulpura Venkatara1nayyQ 
v. Devabhaktuni Kesavanarayana A.I.R. 1963 A. P. 447 at p, 448 (F.B.) ; M/s. 
Baldeo J?as Ram Narayana v. Smt. Maino Bibi and another 76 (C.W.N.) 996, at p. 
1002; N1lkanth Mahaton and others v. Munshi Singh and others A.LR. 1965 Pat. 
141 ; Maimoon Bivi and another v. 0. A. Khajee Mohindeen and another A.I.R. 1970 
Mad. 200 at p. 203 ; Velji Bhimsey & Co. v. Bachoo,Bhaidas I.LR. 48 Born. 691 at p. 
696; Pt .. Devi Charan.v. Durga Pershad & Ors. A.LR. 1967 Delhi 128 at p. 130 ; and 
Bawa Singh v. Jagdtsh Chand and others A.LR. 1960 Punjab 573 at pp. 574-575 
approved . 
Ramsarup Singh v. Muneshwar Singh and others A.LR. 1964 Pat. 74 overruled. 
Jugal Kishore Bhandani v. Union of India (1965) Bihar 
L.~.R. 24, referred to. 
CIVIL AppELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1758 of 1967. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the Ist September 
1959 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 146 of 1955. 
' 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] l S.C.R. 
S. C. Aggarwala, S.S. Bhatnagar and V. J. Francis, for the appellant. 
D. Goburdhan, for respondents nos. 1-3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The question in this appeal by certificate 
is whether a Bench of the High Court of Patna in an appeal from the 
judgment of a Single Judge of that Court in a first appeal can consider 
all matters which a Single Judge could have decided and is not limited 
by the restrictions imposed by s. 100 of the Cede of Civil Procedure. 
A few facts may be stated in order to better cc mp re hrnd the question 
posed before us. The plaintiff/appellant filed a 
money suit 
against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 7,865171-due frcm him on 
account of sale of grains and Rs. 1,512191- as interest. 1he defendant 
admitted the purchase of grain from the appellant but denied
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.