KUPPAINETHU GURUVAPPA NAICKER Vs. MMOUNAGURUSWAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The facts as stated at the Bar are shortly these. The petitioner and the respondent are co-owners of a village in the Madura District, the petitioner owning one-third and the respondent two- thirds of the property. Through the village lands run two water channels, which have been referred to as A and B. Originally the wet cultivation of the village lands covered 200 kulis, roughly 110 acres. Of the 200 kulis the petitioner had 50 kulis and the respondent 150 kulis. In 1908 the petitioner brought under wet cultivation by means of Channel B an additional 14 kulis, which resulted in a suit being filed against him by the respondent for an injunction restraining him from using the channel for this purpose. The suit was compromised and the agreement arrived at was embodied in the decree. Under the decree the petitioner was allowed to cultivate, the 14 kulis, but according to the respondent he was to be restrained from cultivating any further area. The petitioner subsequently brought under wet cultivation a further 5 kulis obtaining the water from stream A. This resulted in an application being filed by the respondent in execution proceedings to restrain him. The contention was that by reason of the injunction which had been granted the petitioner was not entitled to bring under wet cultivation any additional land, either by means of the water from Channel A or from Channel B. The reply was that the injunction which had been granted only referred to Channel B. The District Judge of Madura dismissed the petition, being of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to use the water from Channel A, notwithstanding the decree. An appeal followed to this Court. The appeal was allowed, this Court holding that the petitioner was not entitled to draw further water from either channel. The petitioner desires to appeal to His Majesty in Council against this decision.

(2.) The application for leave is opposed on the ground that the subject-matter is not of the value of Rs. 10,000. The application came before this Court in the first instance on the 9th February, 1939, and a report on the value of the property was called for from the District Judge. Before the District Judge it was conceded by the respondent that the value of the land belonging to the petitioner which is affected by the judgment of this Court is far more than Rs. 10,000. The value of the additional 5 kulis which the petitioner brought under cultivation and which resulted in the present proceedings is admittedly under Rs. 10,000. The petitioner says that in as much as the property affected by the decree is of the value of Rs. 10,000 he is entitled to the certificate under the second, clause of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) We consider that this contention is well founded. In Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Sundaraswamier (1922) 43 M.L.J. 323 : L.R. 49 I.A. 211 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 475 (P.C.), the Judicial Committee observed: In the first place, the sum of money actually at stake may not represent the true value. The proceedings may, in many cases, such as a suit for an instalment of rent or under a contract, raise the entire question of the contract relations between the parties and that question may, settled one way or the other, affect a much greater value, and its determination may govern rights and liabilities of a value beyond the limit.