LexMANAGEMENT COMMITTEE T. K. GHOSH'S ACADEMY versus T. C. PALIT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8 72 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE T. K. GHOSH'S ACADEMY A v. T. C. PALIT & ORS. April 9, 1974. (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.) B Con3·ti111tion of lridia. 1950-Art. 133( 1) (a)d:(b)-Distinction beJween clause (a) and (b). The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for the efcctment of the defcndant- appellant from the premises in dispute and for recovery of certain amount on account of arrears of rent The defendant-appellant on the other hand claimed that under the deed of trust they were entitled to occupy the· satd premises without payment of rent. The lower court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. On a9peal the High Court set aside the decree for eject- C ment and reduced the amount for recovery. The High Court,.granted certificate of fitness under clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1) of the Constitution. On apPeal it was contended by the respondents that the Hi_.Jl Court was wrong in granting the certificate of fitness aµd that it should be cantcned. Dismissing the a99lication for cancellation of certificate of fitness, HELD: The appeal is maintainable under Art. 133(l)(b) of th.e Constitution. To attrac;l the applkation of Art. 133(1)(b) it is essential that there must be a judgment' involving directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property or an amount or value not ·less than rupees twenty thousand. The variation in the language used in clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1) pointedly highlights the conditions which attract the application of the two clauses. Under clause (a) what is decisive is the amOunt or value of the subject matter in the court of first instance and ··still in dispute" in appeal to the Supreme Court : under clause (b) it is the aniount or value of the property rcspCcting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought to be appealed from. The expression "property'' is not defined but having regarJ to the use of the expres- sion .. amount'' it would apparently include money. But the property respecting which the claim or question urises 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 raised respecting property other than the subject matter, clause (a) will apply : if there is involved in the appeal a claim or question respectin$ pro- . perty of an amount or value not less than rupee twenty thousand in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute clause (b) will apply. [878 F-H] Chhitannal v. Mis. Shah Pa111wlal Clzand11lal, [19651 2 S.C.R. 751, referred lo. The judgment of the High Court in the present case plainly did not affirm the decision of the trial court b;?cause the High Court set aside the decree fllr eject- roent_and also reduced the amount for the recovery of which decree for ejectmcnt and also reduced the amount. for the recovery of which decree had been awarded by the trial court. The variation of the decree of the trial court was in favour of tho defendants-appellants but that circumstance would not detract from the fact that the judgment of the High Court was not one of affirmance of the deci- sion ·of the trial court. In determining the character of the appellate decree what has to be looked into is the appellate decree taken in its entu-ety and com- pare it with the decision of the trial court as a whole and decide whether the appellate decree is one of affirmance or not. In this enqutry the nature of the variation made whether it is in favour of the intending appellant or otherwise would not be relevanl. [877 G-HJ Ti~umalachetti Rajarani v. Tirunralachelti Radlwkris/Jnayya Chell) .. , [1'62] 2 S.C.R. 452, followed. Jn the illstant case tbe said Premises were admittedly of the value of more than rupees twenty thousand. The school premises were plainly not the subject D E F G H A . B MA!(AGEMENT GHFSH ACADEMY v. T. c. PALIT (Khanna, /.) 873 matter of tho dispute because if that bad been so the case would have fallen undor clauoe ·(a). On the contrary the present was a case IOlating to a claim n:~ing property of the vah1e of more than rupees t\\tenty thousand. The ea:1e as such would fall within the ambit of clause ( b). [879 CJ SIU'Qpati Roy & Ors. v. Rant Narayan Muklzerji &: Ors., .50 Indian Appeal11 15.5, relied on. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jagan Nalh Pandurang & Anr. [1972] 3 S.C.R. 92~, held inapplicable • CIVIL APPJ,.LLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.