MURTU Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated May 17, 1951, in second appeal No. 8 of 1951, Paras Ram v. Mst. Murtu and others, whereby the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge of Mahasu were set aside and those of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent restored.

(2.) The value of the land in suit is admittedly Rs. 10,000/-. It was therefore objected by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that in view of the provisions of Article 133 of the Constitution of India, which has raised the value of the subject-matter of the dispute from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, the petitioners are not entitled to the certificate prayed for. It may be stated here in passing that the judgment of this Court having reversed the decision of the lower appellate Court, the petitioners would be entitled to the certificate as a matter of course without the proposed appeal involving any substantial question of law if the case fulfils the relevant requirement as regards the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute. The question however, is whether for the fulfilment of the said requirement as regards the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute the present petition is to be governed by the provisions of Article 133 of the Constitution of India or by some other provisions.

(3.) Before deciding the above point it is necessary to state that the present suit was instituted on 28-5-1948 and decreed by the trial Court on 31-7-1950. The first appeal before the District Judge was allowed on 28-12-1950, and the District Judge's decision was set aside by this Court, as already stated, on 17-5- 1951. The present petition was filed on 3-7-1951. The Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, long after the institution of the suit. Now, the locus classicus on the subject is the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Privy Council in 'Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving', (1905) AC 3G9, and on an interpretation of the principle there enunciated and reaffirmed by their Lordships in the 'Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi', AIR (14) 1927 PC 242, it has been held in Full Bench decisions of at least three High Courts, i.e. in 'Sadar Ali v. Doliluddin', AIR (15) 1928 Cal 640; 'Ram Singha v. Shankar Dayal', AIR (15) .1928 All 437 and