Skip to content


Madappa Chidri Vs. Apparao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 943 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Kant310; AIR1960Mys310; ILR1960KAR892
ActsStates Reorganisation Act - Sections 59(2), 62(1), 62(2) 65(2) and 125(1); Constitution of India - Articles 2, 3, 4, 225 and 368
AppellantMadappa Chidri
RespondentApparao and ors.
Excerpt:
.....in high court of hyderabad reorganisation of states took place - whether after reorganisation andhra pradesh high court had jurisdiction to hear appeal - under section 65 (2) if proceeding pending in high court of hyderabad immediately before appointed day was not certified by chief justice of that high court as one which could be heard and decided by high court of mysore same stood transferred to high court of andhra pradesh - present appeal since not certified by chief justice fell within residuary provisions contained in section 65 (2) and therefore statutory stood transferred to high court of andhra pradesh. - karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959. [k.a. no. 11/1959]. section 30-b: [s. abdul nazeer, j]. power of the state government to give direction in public interest -..........of mysore, it was not so certified.the result was that that appeal was heard by the high court of andhra pradesh. by an order made by that high court on june 23, 1958, the decree of the subordinate judge of bidar was set aside and the suit was remanded to the subordinate judge, bidar. the high court of andhra pradesh took the view that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was brought in the name of the plaintiff as if he were a minor although he was a major could not be sustained. (4) when the subordinate judge, bidar, was asked to try the suit in pursuance to the order of remand made by the high court of andhra pradesh, he declined to do so. he was of the view that the andhra pradesh high court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal presented by the plaintiff. he appears to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This revision petition relates to a suit brought by the petitioner for the cancellation of two sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2.

(2) That suit was originally instituted in the District Court, Payaga, in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad. But, after the abolition of the Jahgirs, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. On March 6, 1953, the suit was dismissed by that Court on the technical ground that the suit was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, who although, a major was represented to be a minor. From that decree, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Hyderabad and when that appeal was still pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, there was the reorganisation of states which took place on November 1, 1956.

(3) Under the provisions of Section 62(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, such proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, as were certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Mysore, stood transferred to the High Court of Mysore. Although having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action, the plaintiff's appeal pending before the High Court of Hyderabad should have been normally certified by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Hyderabad as one which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Mysore, it was not so certified.

The result was that that appeal was heard by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By an order made by that High Court on June 23, 1958, the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bidar was set aside and the suit was remanded to the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh took the view that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was brought in the name of the plaintiff as if he were a minor although he was a major could not be sustained.

(4) When the Subordinate Judge, Bidar, was asked to try the suit in pursuance to the order of remand made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he declined to do so. He was of the view that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal presented by the plaintiff. He appears to have been of the view that having regard to the place of the accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the High Court of Hyderabad was one which had to be heard and decided by the High Court for the New State of Mysore and not by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The order made by him to that effect is the one against which this revision petition is presented.

(5) Mr. Manohar Rao Jahagirdar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is clearly opposed to the provisions of Section 65(2) of the States Reorganisation Act. That sub-section reads :

'65. High Court of Andhra Pradesh-

(1)...................................

(2) All proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad immediately before the appointed day, other than those certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 or under sub-section (2) of Section 62, shall stand transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.'

(6) We are not concerned here with the provisions of Section 59(2) of the Act which provides for transfer of proceedings to the High Court of Bombay. Sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 62 which provide for the transfer of proceedings to the High Court of Mysore, read :

'62. Transfer of proceedings to Mysore High Court--(1) Except as hereinafter provided, neither the High Court at Bombay nor the High Court at Madras shall, as from the appointed day, have jurisdiction in respect of any territory transferred from the existing state of Bombay or the State of Madras, as the case may be, to the New State of Mysore.

(2) Such proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad or the High Court at Bombay or Madras, immediately before the appointed day, as are certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Mysore (referred to in this Act as the High Court of Mysore) shall, as soon as may be, after such certification be transferred to the High Court of Mysore. .............. . ......... ........... ............. ..............'.

(7) It is clear from sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act that if a proceeding pending in the High Court of Hyderabad immediately before the appointed day was not certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court as the one which could be heard and decided by the High Court of Mysore, it stood transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff's appeal, in this case, which was pending in the High Court of Hyderabad on the appointed day, not having been certified by the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court, as one which should be heard and decided by the High Court of the new State of Mysore, fell within the residuary provisions contained in Section 65(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, and therefore, statutory stood transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(8) Mr. Patil, appearing on behalf of the defendants urged that if the High Court of Andhra Pradesh did not otherwise have jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal, presented by the plaintiff, the provisions of Section 65(2) of the States Reorganization Act could not confer such jurisdiction on it: During his argument, he referred also to Section 125(1) of the States Reorganization Act, but it is unnecessary to make any reference to that section which refers only to proceedings other than proceedings pending before a High Court.

(9) Under Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, Parliament may, by law, admit into the Union or establish new States and form new States and alter areas, boundaries and means of existing States.

(10) The States Reorganization Act is clearly a law made under the provisions of those two articles.

(11) Article 4 of the Constitution reads:

'4. (1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the

Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to to provide for the the First give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain and the Fourth Schedules such supplemental, incidental and consequential provision and supplementa, incidental (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the and consequential matter Legislature or legislatures of the State or States Affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary. (2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.'

(12) Now, the provision contained in Section 65(2) of the States Reorganization Act, conferring jurisdiction on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to hear and decide all proceedings which are not certified as proceedings to be heard and decided by the High Court of Mysore, is it is plain, a supplemental, incidental and consequential provision which Parliament was competent to enact. It may be, as provided by Article 225 of the Constitution, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would not normally have jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal from a decree made by a Court which was not situate within its jurisdiction.

But, if Section 65(2) of the States Reorganization Act contained a transitional provision, conferring jurisdiction on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to hear and decide all matters which did not stand transferred to the High Court of Mysore under a certificate properly made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Hyderabad, the conferment of such jurisdiction on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being clearly an incidental, supplemental and consequential provision within the meaning of that expression occurring in Article 4 of the Constitution, is not open to the objection that it contravenes the provisions of the Constitution. That is the clear meaning of Clause 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution.

(13) That being the position, the Subordinate Judge of Bidar was not right in declining to implement the order of remand made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //