CHHITARMAL versus M/S, SHAH PANNALAL CHANDULAL

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 14-01-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHHITARMAL 
v. 
M/S, SHAH PANNALAL CHANDULAL 
January 14, 1965 
[K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH, 
J. R. MUD!!OLKAR AND s. M. Srroo JJ.J 
751 
Constitution of India, Art. 133(l)(a) 
and 
133(1)(b)-Require-
ments for grant of certificates to appeal to Supreme Court, 
The petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Judge claiming 
a decree for Rs. 10,665 and any balance ascertained as due to him 
on taking account, being proceeds of sales made by the respondents as 
the petitioner's agents. 
· 
The trial court passed a decree directing that an account be taken 
of the amount due and appointed a Commissioner for the purpose. 
Jn 
appeal the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. 
An 
application filed by the petitioner for a certificate under Art. 133 was 
rejected by the High Court. 
Upon a petition for special leave to appeal under Art. 136, it was 
contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the judgment of the High 
Court involved a claim or question respecting property of a value ex-
ceeding Rs. 2.0,000 and the petitioner was entitled as a matter of right 
to a certificate from the High Court under Art. 133(1)(b). 
HELD : Under cl. (a) what is decisive is the amount or value of 
tho subject-matter in the court of first instance and "still in dispute" in 
appeal to the Supreme Court; under cl. (b) it is the amount or value 
of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the 
judgment sought to be appealed from. 
The expression 
"property" 
i.! 
not defined in the Code, but having regard to the use of the expression 
"amount" it would apparently include money. 
The property respecting 
which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to or 
other than the subject-matter of the dispute. If in a proposed appeal 
there is no claim or question raiS""..d respecting property other than the 
subject-matter, cl. (a) will apply: if there is involved in the 
appeal a 
claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less 
than Rs. 20,000 in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the 
dispute cl. (b) will apply. (754 B-E] 
In tho present case, the claim in the coun of first instance did not 
reach Rs. 2u.OOO, and therefore a certificate could not be granted under 
Art. 133(l)(a). [754 Al 
It could not be said that a judgment dealing with a claim to money 
alleged to be due from an agent for price of goods belonging to the 
principal, sold by the agent, involved a claim or question respecting the 
goods which had been sold. 
Furthermore, although 
the 
petitioner's 
claim on appeal including interest exceeded Rs. 20,000, this was still the 
subject-matter in dispute; the judgment did not involve 
any 
claim 
or 
question respecting property in addition to or other than the subject-
matter of the suit. 
Article 133 (I )(b) was, therefore, also not applicable. [754 G-H; 755 
A] 
752 
· SUPREME 
COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 2 S.C.ll. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
/j. 
(Civil) No. 890 of 1964. 
Petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from 
'the judgment and decree dated December 16, 1963 of the Rajas-
than High Court in Civil First Appeal No. 54 of 1956. 
Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, Zalim Singh, Meeratwal and Nau-
" it Lal, for the petitioner 
M. C. Setalvad, and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. The petitioner applies for special leave to appeal 
under Art. 136 of the Constitution, against the judgment of the 
High Court of Rajasthan dated December 16, 1963 in Civil First 
Appeal No. 54 of 1956 on. two grounds : 
• 
c 
(1) that the judgment of the High Court involves a 
D 
claim or question respecting property of not less than 
Rs. 20,000 in value, and the High Court erred in refus-
ing a certificate under Art. 133(1) (b) of the Constitution; 
and 
(2) that the case is otherwise fit for' appeal to the 
E 
Supreme Court. 
The material facts bearing on the plea raised are these. The 
petitioner commenced on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Sub-
ordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer an action against the respon-
dents claiming a decree for Rs. 
I 0,665 and for rendition of F 
accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales 
of cotton purchased by him through the agency of the respondents. 
The petitioner claimed that I 04 bales of cotton purchased by him 
were sold by the respondents as his agents on May 14, 1948 for 
R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.