VASUDEVARU Vs. IDICHANDY OOMMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of M. S. Menon, C. J. & M. Madhavan Nair, J. was delivered by M. Madhavan Nair, J.

(2.) The answer to that question turns on the interpretation of sub-s.(3) of that Section, which reads thus:

(3.) Shri T. K. Narayana Pillai contended that the word 'decree' in the above sub-section cannot be taken to mean a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure or a decree appealable as that would be adding words to the enactment. Though counsel put it vehemently we do not feel persuaded. The D. R. Act does not purport to create a new kind of decrees, but says only that an order under sub-s.(3) of its S.11 "shall be deemed to be a decree." Obviously the definition of a decree has to be sought elsewhere, in some other law than the D. R. Act. Counsel was asked to point out a definition that would apply to the decree mentioned in the D. R. Act, but was not able to give us any other than that in the Code of Civil Procedure. We have therefore to take the word 'decree' in sub-s.(3) of S.11 of the D. R. Act to mean a decree defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case it would be appealable as stated in that Code unless shown expressly made non appealable by some other provision of law.