SOORAJMAL Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 167 of 1962 (decided on 30th March 1965) after leave having been granted by the learned Judge.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that in village Sandawata, Tahsil Sarangpur, there was some agricultural land bearing Khata No. 128 and consisting of survey Nos 797, 798 and 800 measuring 19 Bighas and 4 Biswas, and the appellant's father Motilal was the recorded tenant of these lands. These lands were situated in the erstwhile State of Narsinghgarh. The lands were given on Adh -Batai (sub -lease) to the deceased respondent Rama on 3rd October 1944, The appellant filed a suit on 6th May 1952 for possession of these lands on the ground that the sub -lease was terminated by a notice dated the 8th April 1950. This suit was decided on 13th December 1954 In pursuance of the decree passed in this suit, an execution was filed and on 21st May 1965 the possession of the suit lands were obtained by the appellant. The deceased respondent Rama preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, which was allowed on 7th February 1962 Against this, the appellant Surajmal preferred a second appeal in this Court which was decided by the impugned judgment dated the 30th March 1965. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent being a Shikmi was entitled to the advantage of section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959 Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. On a prayer from the appellant, the learned Judge felt that in view of the decision in Raghunathsingh v. Gangabai 1963 JLJ 998 the question involved in the case is a substantial question of law and so he certified the case as a fit one for filing an appeal under the Letters Patent. Consequently, this letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

(3.) , Shri S. D. Sanghi learned counsel for the appellant, contended that section 52 of the States Reorganisation Act no doubt provides that for the territories of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat the jurisdiction of the High Court under the provisions of the M. B. High Court of Judicature Act would continue; but it does not mean that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under the Letters Patent would not be available. He contended that under section 23 of M. B. High Court of Judicature Act what was contemplated was that the learned Single Judge should certify a case as a fit one for appeal. According to the learned counsel, the issuance of a certificate is only provided in rule 20 of the Rules and Orders under the High Court of Judicature Act, and that being merely a rule of procedure in view of section 54 of the States Reorganization Act will not be applicable, and the leave granted by the learned Single Judge would amount to certifying the Case as a fit one for appeal. Learned counsel contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge itself amounts to a certificate and consequently (here is no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. In support of his contentions, he relied on in Re -Shridhar Rao AIR 1958 AP 60 and Shakuntala v. M. B. Jaisoorya AIR 1958 AP 390.