TRIPASURA VENKATA NARASINGA RAO Vs. VYSYARAJU SURAYYARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are asked to certify under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, that this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of that Act. Although one of the questions raised and argued; before us was a substantial question as to the interpretation of Sections 99 and 100 of that Act it was considered unnecessary to decide it and the appeal was disposed of on another point. Can it then be said that the case "involves" that question We think not. Sub-section 2 of Section 205 clearly contemplates that such question should not only have been raised but also decided by the High Court, for otherwise it would not be possible for any party in the case to appeal to the Federal Court " on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided." Reading Sub-sections (1) and (2) together, it would seem that a case cannot be said to " involve " a question unless its decision is necessary for the purpose of the case.

(2.) In Gaddam Padmanabham v. Pasupuleti Kamaraju and Ors. , one of us sitting alone had to consider whether a certificate under Section 205 could be given in respect of a question which was not raised in this Court at all, although it was raised and decided against the appellant in the Courts below. The question haying been decided adversely to the appellant by a Full Bench of this Court, Counsel for appellant did not argue the point at the hearing of the appeal and the Court made no reference to it in the judgment. Subsequently however an application was made for the issue of a certificate under Section 205 as the question was one of interpretation of the Constitution Act. The Court refused to grant a certificate observing:

(3.) A similar view has been expressed by the Allahabad and Bombay High Courts. In Muhammad Saidkhan v. Shiam Lall and Ors. I.L.R. (1944) All. 773, the learned Judges observed thus: