LexGARIKAPATTI VEERAYA versus N. SUBBIAH CHOUDHURY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 February, I. 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS GARIKAPA TTI VEERAYA v. N. SUBBIAH CHOUDHURY [1957] [S. R. DAS C. J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs J J.J Supreme Court, Appellate furisdiction of-Dea·ee in suit insti· tuted prio1· to the Constitution reversed in appeal by High Court ofter the Constitution-Value of subject-matter short of twenty-thousand- Appeal, if lies-Vested 1·ight of appeal-Constitution of India, Arts. 133, 135. This application for $pecial leave to appeal arose out of .a suit instituted on April 22, 1949, and valued at Rs. 11,400. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the High Court in appeal reversed that decision on February IO, 1955. Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the High Court on the ground that the value did not come upto Rs. 20,000. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that he had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court under the law as it then stood and that Court having been substituted by the Supreme Court, he was as of right entitled to appeal to that Court under Art. 135 of the Constitution. Held, (per Das C.J., Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha and S. K. Das JJ., Venkatarama Ayyar J. dissenting) that the contention of the applicant was well-founded, that he had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court on and from the date of the suit and the application for special leave should be allowed. The vested right of appeal was a substantive right and, although it could be exercised only in case of an adverse decision, it was governed by the law prevailing at the time of commenttment of the suit and comprised all successive rights of appeal from court to court, which really constituted one proceeding. Such a right could be taken away only by a subsequent enactment either cxprCssly or by necessary intendment. Colonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd. v. Irving, (1905) A.C. 369, followed. Sadar Ali v. Dalimuddin, (1929) I.L.R. 56 Cal. 512 and ln re Vasudeva Samiar, (1928) I.L.R. 52 Mad. 361, relied on. Casc~law ·reviewed. Article 133 of the Constitution had no application to such cases. It was not intended to have retrospective operation so as co tak~ a.way this vested right nor did it do so either in express terms or by necessary intendment. Correctly construed it should be read as restricted to only those judgments, decrees and final orders of a High Court in respect of which there was no such S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 489 vested right of appeal, as otherwise cl. 20 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, which saves such a right, would become nuga- tory. A litigant in a Princely State who could have no vested right of appeal to the Federal Court must, however, come under Art. 133. ]anardan Reddy v. The Staie, (1950), S.C.R. 940, Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, (1951) S.C.R. 228 and Dajisahib Mane v. Shankar Rao Vithal Rao, (1955) 2 S.C.R. 872, referred to. This vested right of appeal acquired under the old b w was a matter contemplated by Art. 135 of the Constitution in relation to which the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court were exercisable at the commencement of the Constitution and as such it was within the purview of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the appeal was entertainable by it. Article 135 could not be limited to such cas~ only where the right of appeal had actually arisen in a concrete form, and was no mere potentiality, immediately before the Constitution. Ramaswami Chettiar v. The Official Receiver, A.LR. 1951 Mad. 1051, Veeranna v. Chi11a Venkanna, I.L.R. 1953 Mad. 1079, Probirendra Mohan v. Berhampore Bank Ltd. A.LR. 1954 Cal. 289, Ram Sahai v. Ram Sewak, A.LR. 1956 All. 321, Tafammul Hussain v. Mst. Qaisar /agan Begam, A.LR. 1956 All. 638 and The Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Mal Pahar Chand, A.LR. 1956 Punj. 228, overruled. Canada Cement Co. Ltd. v. East Montreal (Town of), (1922) l A.C. 249 and Nathoo Lal ''- Durga Prasad, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 51, distinguished. Per Venkatarama Ayyar /. A right of appeal was undoubtedly a substantive right but it did not, therefore, follow that it vested in the parties to a suit on and from the date of its commencement and the decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd. v. Irving on which such a theory was sought to be founded was neither supportable in principle nor warranted by the authorities it relied on.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.