LAWS(KAR)-1958-10-2

MADAPPA CHIDRI Vs. APPARAO

Decided On October 13, 1958
MADAPPA CHIDRI Appellant
V/S
APPARAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition relates to a suit brought by the petitioner for the cancellation of two sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) That suit was originally instituted in the District Court, Payaga, in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad. But, after the abolition of the Jahgirs, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. On March 6, 1953, the suit was dismissed by that Court on the technical ground that the suit was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, who although, a major was represented to be a minor. From that decree, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Hyderabad and when that appeal was still pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, there was the reorganisation of states which took place on November 1, 1956.

(3.) Under the provisions of Section 62(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, such proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, as were certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Mysore, stood transferred to the High Court of Mysore. Although having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action, the plaintiff's appeal pending before the High Court of Hyderabad should have been normally certified by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Hyderabad as one which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Mysore, it was not so certified. The result was that that appeal was heard by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By an order made by that High Court on June 23, 1958, the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bidar was set aside and the suit was remanded to the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh took the view that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was brought in the name of the plaintiff as if he were a minor although he was a major could not be sustained.