KANAHAYA Vs. KUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of my learned predecessor in Civil Revision 58 of 1952.

(2.) Kanhaya (who is the petitioner before me) and three others filed a suit against Kundan and others seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Kundan from officiating as Pujari of Devta Bha-tindlu and to restrain the other defendant from permitting Kundan to work as Pujari and to restrain all of them from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights as Pujari. The Senior Subordinate Judge granted a decree which was affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Then, there was a revision petition to this Court, which was disposed of by my learned predecessor on 29-4-1953. My learned predecessor set aside the decrees of the two Courts below and gave declaration that the plaintiffs and Daulat Ram, defendant, were entitled to hold the office of Pujari jointly with Kundan. Kanahya and the remaining plaintiffs now seek a certificate to enable them to appeal to the Supreme Court. This petition was admitted by my learned predecessor. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the value of the subject-matter of the suit was less than Rs. 20,000/-, the case is not covered by Section 109 (a) or (b), Civil P. C. At the conclusion of the arguments, it was suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not possible to ascertain the money value of the subject-matter, since the rights of posterity were involved. I am unable, however, to accept this argument. The dispute was over Pujari rights. In the plaint, the value of the suit for purposes of injunction was fixed at Rs. 130/-. The value of the suit for the purpose of the alternate relief, namely, restoration of proprietary rights was given as Rs. 541/-. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the value of the subject-matter was Rs. 20,000/-, or upwards. Consequently, the case is not covered by Section 109(a) or (b).

(3.) There remains Section 109 (c). Before a certificate can be granted, this Court must satisfy itself that some substantial question of law of great importance is involved. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in this case the right of worship was involved and this was a recurring right and, therefore, it would amount to a substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that no substantial question of law was involved in this case. He further pointed out that, in coming to his decision, my learned predecessor expressed his opinion that the Courts below had committed a material error of procedure, affecting the ultimate decision of the case by deciding the question of limitation (with respect to the extinguishment of the defendants' right under Section 28, Limitation Act) in disregard of established principles of pleadings, and, therefore, he felt that he was bound to interfere. He also relied upon a Privy Council decision, reported in--'Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras', AIR 1949 PC 156 (A). Learned counsel also pointed out that on these matters there are well established authorities and, therefore, contended that this case was not fit for appeal under Section 109(c). Reliance was placed, 'inter alia', on--'Balasubramania & Co. v. Radha-krishnamurthy', AIR 1949 Mad 741 (B), where a Division Bench of that High Court pointed out that: