SUNDER Vs. KIRPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession by redemption.

(2.) The trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the amount due to the defendants on account of a mortgage was Rs. 470/and made an order for delivery of possession on payment of that sum, An appeal was filed by the defendants, and the appeal has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. Against that decree the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel lor the respondents has raised a preliminary objection. He urges that the appeal is not maintainable because the decree under appeal is a decree affirming the trial court decree and, therefore, the appeal does not lie under paragraph 32 (1) (b) (i) of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, and inasmuch as the value of the suit is less than Rupees 1,000/- and the decree under appeal does not involve directly any claim to, or question respecting, property of the value of Rs. 1,000/- or upwards, it does not lie under paragraph 32 (1) (b) (ii) of that order. The objection is sound and must be upheld.