LexDAJISAHEB MANE AND OTHERS versus SHANKAR RAO VITHAL RAO MANE AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 October 11 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS DAJISAHEB MANE AND OTHERS ti. SHANKAR RAO VITHAL RAO MANE AND ANOTHER. [1955] [S. R. DAS, DAS, fAFER AcTING C. J., VIVIAN BosE, iMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA fACANNADHA· AIYAR JJ.] Constitution of India-Arts. 133 and 135-Decree of lower court in respect of properties of the value of more than Rs. 10,000 but below Rs. 20,000--Reversed by the High Court on 8-11-1949-High Court g•·anted 'leave to appeal on 1-10-1951-Appeal to the Supreme Court -Whether competent-Word "exercisable" in Art. 135-Construction of. This appeal to the Supreme Court_ was from a reversing decree of the Bombay High Court in a suit for possession of certain im· movable properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 20-12-1946, the value of properties being found to be over Rs. 10,000. The decree of the High Court allowing the plaintiff's claim was passed on the 8th November 1949. The defendants applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on 6-1-1950 which was granted on 1-10-1951. One of the questions for determination was whether Art. 133 of the Constitution applied to the case and the appeal was compe- tent to the Supreme Court. Held, that Art. 133 did not apply as it relates expressly to ap- peals against any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceed- ing of a High Court in the "territory of India''. Held further that on the date of the decree of the High Court, the defendants had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court as the properties were of the requisite value and on 6-1-1950 a certi- ficate of leave to appeal was bound to be granted. Held also that the appeal was competent to the Suprerae Court by virtue of the provisions of Art. 135 of the Constitution as the jurisdiction and powers in relation to the matter in dispute were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commence- ment of the Constitution under an existing law. inasmuch as the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals from a decree of a High Court which reversed the lower court's decree as regards properties of the value of more than Rs. 10,000. The construction contended for by the respondent that the jurisdiction was exercisable under Art. 135 by the Federal Court only if the matter was actually pending before the Federa~ Court and that· it could not be said to be pending until the appeal is declared admitted under Order XLV of the Civil Procedure Code is 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 87.l too narrow and does not give full and proper scope to the meaning of the word 'exercisable' in the Article. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1953. Appeal under section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code from the Judgment and Decree dated the 8th November 1949 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 195 of 1947 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 20th December 1946 of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur in Special Suit No. 78 of 1945. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (R. A. Govind, with him) for the appelbnts. J B. Dadachanji, Sri Narain Andley and Rajinder Narain, for respondents. 1955. October 11. The Judgment of the Court was. delivered by CttANDRASEKH.~RA ArYAR J.-This appeal is from a reversing decree of the Bombay High Court in a suit for the possession of certain immovable proper-· ties which w<ts dismissed hv the Civil Judge, Senior · Division, Sholapur. The value of the properties has been found to be over Rs. 10,000. The Original decree was on 20-12-1946. The decree of the High Court allowing the plaintiff's claim was on 8-11-1949. The defendants applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on 6-1-1950. The High Court directed the trial court to find the value of the pro- perty which was the subject-matter of the suit at the time of the rnit and on the date of the passing of the decree in appeal. On 22-1-1951 the lower court ascer- tained the value as stated above. The High Court the:cafter granted leave to appeal on 1-10-1951, over- rn1ing the objections raised by the plaintiff to the grant of such lt:a-:e. The maintainability of this appeal has been ques- tionc.I before us hy Mr. Dadachanji, learned counsel for the respondents. in a somewhat lengthv argument. His main contention was th~t article LB of the in--14 S.C. fndia/59 1955 Dajisa!1Cb. Mav and others v. ShtJ11
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.