MARKANDALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in a laud acquisition case. It is admitted by both sides that the amount in dispute both in the Court below and on appeal to the Supreme court is above the mark. The only question is whether the decision of the High court can be treated as one of affirmance involving a substantial question of law. It is admitted that there is no substantial question of law as such, because the appeal involving only the valuation of the property and no substantial point of law was either mooted or decided. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, contends that the judgment cannot be treated as one of affirmance, because it varied the decree of the Court below. The variation, however, was in favour of the applicants.

(2.) THE question as to when a judgment partly modifying the lower Court's decision can be called a judgment of affirmance and when not, has been the subject-matter of great controversy in India, and, in Sitaram v. Harikisan, Misc. Civil Case No. 135 of 1954, D/- 28-11-1955 (Nag) (A), a Full Bench of this Court adverted to this difference of opinion in India. On that occasion the question framed was as follows :

(3.) THE dispute in India has really arisen on an interpretation of a decision of their lordships of the Privy Council in Annapurnabai v. Ruprao, ILR 51 Col 969: (AIR 1925 PC 60) (B ). There a claim for maintenance was placed at Rs. 3,000 a year. It was decreed at Rs. 800/- in the first Court but was increased to Rs. 1200/- by the appellate Court. Their Lordships hold that the judgment of the appellate Court could not be treated as one of affirmance and that the appellant had a right of appeal, which was wrongly refused by the High Court.