UNION OF INDIA Vs. KANAHAYA LAL SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have been called upon to answer a ques tion which may for convenience be propounded as follows:--

(2.) MESSRS. Kanhaya Lal-Sham Lal brought a suit against the Union of India for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,98,238 and obtained a decree in a sum of Rs. 1,58,271-2-10 with proportionate costs and future interest. On appeal by the union of India this Court reduced the decree to a sum of Rs. 1,33,275-11-4 thereby decreasing the liability o the Union of India to the extent of Rs. 24,9957-6. The Union of India are anxious to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and have asked us to certify that the amount in controversy is not less than Rs. 20,000, that the judgment of this Court does not confirm the decision of the trial Court and consequently that the Union of India are entitled to appeal as of right. As the amount in dispute admittedly exceeds the stated amount, the only question for this Court is whether the judgment from which an appeal is sought to be preferred affirms the decision of the Court immediately below.

(3.) A High Court is at liberty to affirm, reverse or modify any judgment, decree or final order appealed from as the justice of the case may require. To 'affirm' means to confirm or ratify. A judgment of affirmance is a determination by the appellate court that the controlling questions have been correctly decided by the order under appeal and that the appellate Court has adopted the conclusions of the court below in their entirety even though the said conclusions have been arrived at by an erroneous process of reasoning. It comes into being when the appellate Court declares that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, or when the appeal is dismissed on merits or for want of timely, prosecution or for some other cause or when the appellate Court declines to add to, alter or amend the judgment of the Court below. The expression 'reverse' means to set aside, nullify or vacate. A judgment of reversal is a detision which nullifies, vacates or sets aside the judgment of a lower Court. The expression 'modify' means to change, vary or alter an existing thing. It implies no power to create or destroy but only the power to change, alter or amend a thing which has already been created. It includes the elements of increasing or decreasing. A judgment of modification is a determination by which the appellate Court alters partially the order of the lower Court by adding something to or by subtracting something from the judgment under appeal leaving the remaining portion to stand affirmed and in full force and effect. Each of these three expressions 'affirm', 'reverse' and 'modify' has received by long usage in the Courts a settled meaning which is in consonance with the ordinary, natural and familiar meaning of the word concerned. Quite apart from authority therefore and upon a plain interpretation of the meaning of the expressions referred to above, it seems to me that if a judgment is partly in favour of a party and partly adverse to him and he appeals from the portion which is adverse, then the judgment of the appellate Court would he a judgment of affirmance if it allows the order of the lower Court to remain unaltered and unmodified; a judgment of reversal if it vacates or sets aside the said order, and a judgment of modification if it alters or amends the said order. When an appellate Court alters the decision of a lower Court it cannot be said to confirm or ratify but to alter, amend or modify even though the variation is small and insignificant and even though the variation is entirely in favour of the person who wishes to prefer the appeal: Kashi Bai v. Brajendra Nath, AIR 1953 Pat 380 (A); Annapurnabai v. Ruprao, ILR 51 Cal 969: (AIR 1925 PC 60) (B ).