SRIRAMA MURTHY Vs. SURANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner (Talla Sreeramt Murthy), who was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 61/56. Sub Court, Rajahmuadry, and the respondent in Appeal No. 308/1961- High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, seeks a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1)(a) or (b) of the Constitution on the ground that as the High Court has reversed the decision of the trial court and as the value of tke subject matter of the dispute in the court of first instance and still in dispute was and is not less than Rs. 20,000/-.he is entitled as of right to a certificate. We are unable to accede to this contention. What ever may be the value of the property in dispute to-day, in the trial court the petitioner as plaintiff in the suit, had in August 1956, valued his claim at the then maket value, whieh he had estimated at Rs. 18, 750/-. He cannot now at this distance of time, when it suits him, be permitted to say that the value then was not lest than Rs. 20,000-. We are fortified in our view by the observations of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1/62 decided on 8.5. 1963. Speaking for the court this is what Hidayatwllah J. said

(2.) AS regards sub clause (b), of clause (1) of Art. 133, in our opinion that sub-clause is not applicable to this case. The petition is therefore, dismissed. M.S.K Petition dicmised