KASHI BAI Vs. BRAJENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this Court in Appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 252 and 254 of 1948. The applicant is one Shreemati Kashi Bai whs was the appellant in both the appeals. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a suit. Title Suit No. 16 of 1945, against this petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad, and the case pub forward by them was that the defendants had encroached upon their coal land. They had, therefore, prayed that the intermediate boundary line between their coal land and the coal land of the defendant Shreemati Kashi Bai be fixed and determined, that their possession over the encroached land be restored and that they be awarded compensation for the coal cut and removed, by the defendant from the disputed coal land.

(2.) This suit had been instituted on 24-3-1945, and on 31-7-1945 Shreemati Kashi Bai filed another suit Title Suit No. 50 of 1945, against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 and certain other persons, and this suit was also in respect of the very piece of coal land for which Title Suit No. 16 had been instituted. The reliefs sought in this suit were almost the same as in the previous suit. The decision in the two suits was against the petitioner; that is, Suit No. 16 was decreed and Suit No. 50 was dismissed. The petitioner had to prefer appeals against the two decisions, and this Court affirmed the decree granted by the Subordinate Judge in the two suits with this modification that in Title Suit No. 16 certain new persons were added as co-plaintiffs and they were granted a joint decree along with the other plaintiffs.

(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that though the suits were valued at Rs. 5100 only for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, the real value of the property in suit and the claim involved in the two suits considerably exceeded Es. 20,000, and that consequently the judgment and the decree under appeal involve, directly or indirectly, claim or question respecting property of the value of more than Rs. 20,000. It is further contended that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 16 has been subsequently varied, and the decree of this Court cannot, therefore, be regarded as a decree of affirmance, and that in accordance with the provisions of Order 45, Rule 4 the suits which involve substantially the same questions for determination and which have been decided by the same judgment have to be consolidated. In the alternative, it is suggested that if the decree of this Court be treated as a decree affirming the decision of the Court below, then in that case the appeal involves some substantial questions of law,