SAMIDORAI THENNAVARAYAR Vs. VAITHILINGA THENNAVARAYAAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised is of some importance, as it relates to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court wider Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution, read along with section 110 C. P. C. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother; but, I however, wish to add a few words, having regard to the. fact that no direct decision on, the precise point now in issue has been brought to our notice. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition have been fully set out by Kailasam J. and they need not be repeated.

(2.) A right of appeal is a substantive right, though it stems from a statute or the constitution, and is not inherent in every defeated suitor. The constitutional provisions dealing with the, right of appeal to the Supreme Court have to be read with due regard to the qualifications, limitations and restrictions contained therein; but with a liberality which would favour an appeal being preferred rather than with the stringency that would defeat it. If the words are sufficiently clear, either, for or against an appeal, there can be no issue regarding the right. If, however, the words are ambiguous and are capable of being construed as sustaining a right of appeal, or as conferring such a right, it would be proper and legitimate] for the court to uphold the right. This, in my opinion, is a sound canon of construction of statutes. Broadly stated, the ambiguity resulting from the language of an enactment is resolved by adopting that meaning which accords with justice and good sense (Countess of Rothes v. Kirkcadly Waterworks Commissioners, 1882-7 ac 694 ). As between two constructions which are open, both being equally plausible, the court may lean in favour of the morel reasonable of the two, R. v. Halliday, 1917 AC 260.

(3.) NOW we have to construe the words in Article 133 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Section 110 C. P. C. The latter provision does not call for any interpretation; the test of pecuniary valuation is that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the court of first instance must be Rs. 20,000 or upwards and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to the Supreme court must be the same sum or upwards. The language of Article 133 is not identical with that in Section 110 C. P. C. The words in Article 133 (1) (a) are