KUNNAPPADI KALLIANI Vs. LEKHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed under S. 96 of the Code of Civil procedure. The first of the appeals is filed against the decree in O. S. 23 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichur. The suit giving rise to that appeal was filed on 30. 12. 1991. The suit was one for declaration that the sale deed impugned in the suit was not binding on The plaint schedule property of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had title and possession over the property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the reliefs claimed in the plaint at Rs. 28,000/ -. On the suit being dismissed on 29,2. 1996, the plaintiff filed the appeal in this Court, on 29. 5. 1996.

(2.) UNDER S. 12 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, all appeals from the decree of a District Court or a Subordinate Judge's Court lay to High court save as provided in S. 13 of the Act. Originally, S. 13 (1) provided that the appeals from decrees in suits, the subject matter of which did not exceed rs. 7,500/-, lay to the District Court. The limit was raised to Rs. 10,000/-with effect from 26. 3. 1959 by virtue of Act 12 of 1959. The limit under S. 13 (1)for appeals to the District Court was again raised to Rs. 25,000/- by the kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 6. 1. 1984. The limit was further raised to Rs. 2 lakhs by the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 6 of 1996, with effect from 27. 3. 1996. When this appeal was filed in this Court on 29. 5. 1996, the office sought a clarification as to whether in view of the amendment brought in by Act 6 of 1996, the appeal would be maintainable in this court. Court explained that since the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed before the coming into force of Act 6 of 1996, going by Ss. 12 and 13 of the civil Courts Act as they stood at that time, the appeal lay to this Court. He clarified that the amendment will apply only to suits filed after the amendment came into force. He also requested that the matter to be posted before the bench.

(3.) THERE cannot be any doubt that the legal position regarding the maintainability of the appeal in this Court in suits filed prior to the coming into force of Act 6 of 1996 with effect form 27. 3. 1996 is covered by the decision in Clara v. Augustince (1984 KLT 377 ). THEREin, their lordships, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Garikapathi v. Subbiah Chowdhary (AIR 1957 SC 540) held that a similar amendment made with effect from 6. 1. 1984 could not affect the appeals to be filed from decrees in suits instituted prior to that date. Their Lordships held that the finding of a suit carried with it the right to approach the appellate forum on the basis of the position obtaining as on the date of the filing of the suit and in the absence of any indication in the amendment that it was intended to operate retrospectively, the appeal continue to lay in this Court in suits instituted before that date. The Division Bench relied on the propositions enunciated in garikapathi's case regarding the nature of right of appeal and the content of that right. In the light of the propositions clearly enunciated in garikapathi's case the inclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in Clara's case is clearly justified.