LexP. MOHAMMED MEERA LEBBAI versus THIRUMALAYA GOUNDER RAMASWAMY GOUNDER AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. MOHAMMED MEERA LEBBAI v. TIDRUMALA YA GOUI'li"DER RAMASWAMY GOU'.'iDER AND OTIIERS August 23, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACllAWAT, JJ.] Kera/a High Court Act 1958 (5 of 1959), s. 5-Jurisdiction of Single ltuJge to hear appeals raised from Rs. 1,000 under earlier law 10 Rs. 10,000 -Appeal valued at Rs. 3,000 filed before, but heard after, change of law -Appellant whether can claim to be heard by Division Bench. B The appellant"s suit for recovery of possession of propeny and mcsoe C profits filed in 1950 was substantially decreed by the trial coun. The appellant however filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court against the decree in so far as it \vent against him. lbe appeal wa:; heard in 1960 after the Kerala High Court Act 5 of 1959 had been passed and under its provisions the appeal was heard by a single judge. \Vhen the appellant had filed his suit, and later on his appeal, the Travancore-Cochio High Coun Act of 1949 was in force and under that Act the appeal would have been heard by a Division Bench. On the judgmen: of the D High Court going against him the appellant came to the Sup1cme Court by special leave. It was contended on his behalf on the hasis ol Radhakrlshan"s case that the Kerala High Court Act 5 of 1959 could not retrospectively take away his right to he heard by a Division Rench, which he had under the law as it stood when he filed his suit and apl"'."1. Reliance was also placed on Grikapati Veeraya's case for 1he proposition that the institution of a suit carries wit'.h it the implication that all righb E of appeal then in force are preserved to the panies thereto till the rest of the career of the suit. HELD : No pany has a vested righ• to be heord by a specified number of judges. The Travancorc-Cochin Hi$ Court Act of 1949 did not confer any right of appeal on the appellant which has been token away by the later Act. It only provided for procedural matters which are dealt with by several High Courts under the Letters Patent. The con- tmtiOtlll based on Radhakrishan".r case and Garikapati Veeraya's cosc F must therefore be rejected. [578 R-G] Radhakris/1an v. Shridhar, l.L.R. 1950 Nag. 532, disapproved. Uah•ndra v. Darsan, 1.L.R. 31 Pat. 446 and Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbaiah Choudhury. [19571 S.C.R. 488, referred to. lttavlra Mathai v. Varkey Varkey & hir. [1964] 1 S.C.R. 495, followed. It could not also be said that by depriving the appellant of the rWit to have his appeal heard by a Division B<:nch his further right o( appeal to this Court under An. 133 had been affe<:tc<l. Once it is held that no party ha.. a vested right to have his appeal heard by more than one Judge of the High Court. no right to prefer an appeal under Art. 133 can be said to vest in him. the said right beine un- anilable in a case beard and disposed of by a •ingle Judge of the' High C.OOrt. [579 A-Bl C!vn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1963. G H • • 1 • • • MOHAMMAD MEERA v. THIRUMALAYA (Mudho/kar, J.) 575 A Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 10, 1960 of the Kerala High Court in Appeals Suit Nos. 577 and 751 of 1958 and 40 of 1959. • T. N. Subramania Iyer, M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, > f • • for the appellant. B A. V. Vi;wanatha Sastri, S. N. Amjad Nainar and c R. Thiagarajan, for respondent No. 1. M. R. K. Pillai, for respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of possession of certain property and for mesne profits. It is not disputed that the only question of law which arises in this appeal is wheither the apeal could be heard and disposed of by a D single Judge of the High Court. The other questions raised are purely questions of fact. Article 133, cl. (3) of the Constitu- tion clearly provides that notwithstanding anything in the article no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court unless Parliament by law otherwise provides. Parliament has passed no law rendering 'It the judgment of a single Judge appealable to the Supreme Court. Though this provision does not detract from the power of this Court under Art. 13 6 to entertain an appeal from a decision of a single Judge, it is the settled practic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.