KODURI NARAYANA REDDI Vs. LEVUR GOPALAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal preferred by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 in O. S. No. 56 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kavali against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in A. S. No. 189 of 1945, the only question that has been canvassed is whether the lower appellate Court was right in differing from the trial Court and holding that the plaintiff is entitled to cut a vent at the place marked C in the channel mentioned in the plan filed along with the plaint.

(2.) What happened was that in the trial Court the plaintiff was given a decree that he was entitled to irrigate his lands specified in the plaint schedule and marked yellow in the plan from the channel C E and the defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the said right of the plaintiff. In giving this decree the learned District Munsif towards the end of para. 8 of his judgment, observed as follows: Page 1 of 3 Koduri Narayana Reddi and Ors. vs. Levur Gopalareddi and Ors. (06.07.1949 - MAD... 6/19/2007

(3.) At the very outset, it has to be remarked that the law is quite clear that an appeal lies against an order of costs only when that order involves a matter of principle, as where a formal party to the suit against whom no relief is claimed is made to pay the costs of the suit, or where there has been no real exercise of discretion in making the order of costs; This may happen when the successful party is deprived of his costs or is made to pay the costs of the losing party. If the discretion was exercised in fact, the appellate Court would not interfere merely because it would itself have exercised the discretion in a different way. An" appeal would also lie where the order as to costs proceeds upon a misapprehension of fact or law.