AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyanarayana Raju, J.—This is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal lo the Supreme Court against the judgment in C. R. .1''. No. 050 ol 1950.
The Civil Revision Petition had been preferred against an order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur in I.A. No. 279 of 1949, an application filed by the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 52 of 1941 to scale down the decree pass-.td against them, under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, pleading that they are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the said Act as amended by Madras Act XXIII of 1948. The decree-holders contended inter alia that the judgment-debtors could not go behind the compromise decree which was arrived at on the basis that they are not agriculturists and that as the family possessed villages in respect whereof they are paying a peishcush of more than Rs. 500- they would not be agriculturists within the meaning of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur held that notwithstanding the compromise decree, the Respondents (judgment-debtors) are entitled to have the said decree scaled down by reason of the Amending Act XXIII of 1948. Having decided this as a preliminary point, he posted I.A. No, 279 of J949 for evidence on the question as to whether the judgment debtors are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act, The decree-holders tiled the above .mentioned revision petition against the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the preliminary point.
The revision petition came up hearing before Satyanarayana Rao and Krishnaswami Nair who by their order, dated Moth August, 1952, caned for a finding the lower (Joint on the question as to whether the judgment-debtors are agriculturists. On the 17fcli of December, 1952, the Subordinate Judge submitted a finding to the effect that judgment-debtors 1 and 2 raid their father are not agriculturists on the ground that they formed an undivided family and that the family paid peishcush in respect of the villages in their possession of an amount exceeding Rs. 500.
A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition has been taken in this Court by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. He argued that no revision should be entertained against an order on a petition which was not finally disposed of. This Court overruled the preliminary objection holding that as a result of the finding submitted by the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur pursuant to the order made by Satyanarayana Rao and Krishnaswami Nayudu, JJ., the enquiry for which the application was adjourned by him had been completed and I. A. No. 270 of 1949 had been finally disposed of. Affirming the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, this Court held that the judgment-debtors are entitled to have the decree sealed down by reason of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Amending Act XXIII of 1918 but disagreeing with the . Subordinate judge, It was held that the judgment-debtors are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act. The Petitioners have filed this application for have to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court.
The application is opposed by the Respondents on the ground that the judgment; of this Court in the Civil Revision Petition is not a final order within the meaning of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution.
Article 133 (1) of the Constitution reads &us:
An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies.....
The exact connotation of the word ''final'' in Article 133 and similar words in the previous statutes has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (the learned Chief Justice) was a member, in Vallury Mangaraju Vs. Vallury Varahalamma, . Following the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, it was there held that
an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Article 133 if the order complained of finally disposes of the rights of the parties. To put it differently, it should not be an interlocutory order hut a final order deciding the rights of the parties. The word judgment'' in the Article in the context means a final judgment in the sense that it finally decides the rights of the parties.
The question therefore is whether the judgment sought to be appealed from has finally decided the rights of the parties. If no rights of the parties are outstanding to be deemed in the suit, the mere pendency of the suit on the file of the Court does not deprive the otherwise final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the High Court, of its finality. The result of the judgment of this Court is that the Respondents are agriculturists entitled to invoke the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. There is now no subsisting question which remains to be decided. There is nothing more to be done by the Subordinate Judge''s Court except to pass a decree. We, therefore, hold that the judgment in the Civil Revision Petition is a ''final order'' within the meaning- of Article 133.
The proposed appeal raises a question of importance, namely, as to whether the Madras Agriculturists Relief Amending Act (XXIII of 1948) is retrospective in operation. Among other matters it raises the question as to the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkataratnam v. Seshamma which construed the scope of Madras Act XXIII of 1948. We therefore consider that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. We grant leave to the Petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution.
C.M.P. No. 5470 of 1955.
This is an application for stay of further proceeding in I.A. No. 279 of 1949. in O.S. No. 52 of 3.941 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Narasapur, by way of withdrawing the amount lying in deposit to the credit of the said suit,
The Respondents offer to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge''3 Court. Narasapur, as a condition precedent for the withdrawal of the amount deposited by them to the credit of O.S. No. 52 of 1941. There will, therefore, be an order that the Respondents (judgment-debtor;) will not be entitled to withdraw the amount lying In deposit in O.S. No. 52 of 1P41 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Narasapur. except on their furnishing security to the satisfaction of that Court.