STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR. Vs. SRINIVASA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment in C. M. P. No. 8302 of 1950. One of the questions raised in the petition was whether Section 20 of Act 26 of 1948 applied to a post -settlement minor inam. We held the section applied. The Government Pleader argued that our decision would affect innumerable post -settlement minor inams which have been recently notified under the Act. On that ground it is pressed that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. We have no doubt that the question raised is of public importance and therefore we should grant leave. But learned counsel for the respondent, while conceding that the point raised is of sufficient importance, contended that if unconditional leave is granted his client's interest would suffer. He says that the value of the subject -matter of the appeal is only about Rs. 3,000, and that if his client is compelled to go to the Supreme Court he may not be in a position to conduct the litigation and take the risk of the costs of the appeal. In similar circumstances a Full Bench of this Court made some pertinent remarks which we may usefully follow. In - - 'Sethupathi v. Thiruneelakantan',, AIR 1923 Mad 232 (A), an application was made for leave to prefer an appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 109(c), Civil P. C. corresponding to Article 133(1) of the Constitution. There, as in this case, the value of the subject -matter was far below Rs. 10,000. At pages 233 -234 the Chief Justice made the following remarks: