High CourtsDivision Bench(1948) 04 MAD CK 0025

In Re: Chelamcherla Venkateswara Rao

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 April 1948 · Citation: (1948) 61 LW 623 : (1948) 2 MLJ 201

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.V. Rajamannar, O.C.J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 361 words

P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.

1.

This is an appeal against the order of Govinda Menon, J., granting to the appellant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree and

judgment in O.S. No. 24 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Bapatla as regards items 4 and 5 of the plaint Schedule and

dismissing the application as regards the other items. It is contended that the fact that the learned Judge was satisfied that the decision of the lower

Court was contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust as regards some of the items necessarily implies that the decree as such is contrary to

law, or otherwise erroneous or unjust. Even if there is an error as regards a part of the subject-matter, the decree as passed must be deemed to be

erroneous. The ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Vattipalle Eswariah Vs. Vattipalle Rameswarayya and Others, was relied on as supplying

an apposite analogy. It was held in that case that under the terms of Order 41, Rules 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot

direct a second appeal to be admitted in part only. The ratio decidendi of that decision was there was nothing in Order 41, Rule 11 which

permitted of severance of the decree. The appeal had to be either dismissed or admitted as a whole.

2.

The language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 44, Civil Procedure Code, in our view, supports the contention that leave to appeal in forma

pauperis cannot be restricted to a part of the subject-matter of the appeal. The decree appealed from cannot be severed, and the Court cannot

treat the decree so far as a part of the subject-matter is concerned as nationally a separate decree in respect of which alone an order may be made

under that rule. Following the principle of the ruling in Vattipalle Eswariah Vs. Vattipalle Rameswarayya and Others, we hold that the learned

Judge erred in confining the leave to items 4 and 5 only. The application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted in its entirety.