Jagdish Sahai, J.
1. In the application No. 116 of 1966 made by defendant-petitioner under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) read with Article 135 of the Constitution of India, the questions raised were whether in the circumstances of the case a certificate could be granted under Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Saksena learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner conceded before the Division Bench before which the matter had originally came up that Clause (a) does not apply.
2. The facts giving rise to this application in short are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed suit No. 54 of 1946 in the Court of Munsif (City) Saharanpur for the possession over a plot of land situate in the city of Saharanpur after demolition of certain constructions made by the defendant-petitioner. The suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was valued at Rs. 1500 in the plaint.
3. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the value of the constructions made by defendant-petitioner was Rs. 7000.
4. The learned Munsif held that the correct valuation of the constructions made by defendant petitioner on the land in dispute was Rs. 6,000.
5. Mr. Saksena contended before the Division Bench hearing the case that the case would fall under Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. His submission was that the judgment and the decree of this Court directly involves a question respecting property the value of which is over Rs. 10,000. It was urged that inasmuch as the decree provides for the demolition of the constructions made by the defendant-petitioner and the value of those constructions is far in excess of Rs. 10,000 the judgment and the decree of this Court involves directly a question relating to the property the value of which is over Rs. 10,000. This proposition was contested by Sri Kunzru with the result that the division Bench referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this Court.
'1. Whether in considering an application under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) and Section 110(1) and (2), Civil P. C., the High Court would take into account constructions made subsequent to the filing of the suit?
2. Can the High Court, while dealing with an application as mentioned above, certify a case as one fit for appeal to the Supreme Court of India if on the date when the suit was filed the valuation was much below Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 20,000 but on the date when the application for certificate was made in the High Court or on the date when the High Court passed the decree, it was over Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 20,000 as the case may be?'
6. Inasmuch as Mr. Saksena has conceded before us that Clause (a) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution does not apply to the instant case, we are confining our judgment to the question as to whether or not the case can fall under Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution and the second part of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. With regard to the first question we may state that Mr. Saksena had to concede that the valuation of the constructions which were added during the pendency of the present litigation would not be taken into account and the valuation of only those constructions would be taken into consideration which existed at the time when the suit giving rise to this application was filed. For this reason, we would answer the first question referred to us in the negative against the defendant-petitioner and in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party.
8. With regard to the second question the point for consideration is whether Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution or the second part of Section 110, Civil P. C. are independent of Art, 133 (1) (a) and Section 110(1), Civil P. C. respectively. In our judgment, the use of the wordi 'or' after Clause (a) indicates that CL (b) is an independent provision wholly unconnected with Clause (a) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. The same word has been used in Section 110, Civil P. C. Therefore, we hold that the second clause of Section 110, Civil P. C. is also independent of the provisions of Section 110(1), Civil P. C. Apart from the clear language of the statute, we find support for our view from Chittarmal v. Shah Panna Lal Chandulal : 2SCR751 . It was held in that case as follows:--
'The variation in the language used in Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133(1) pointedly highlights the conditions which attract the application of the two clauses. Under Clause (a) what is decisive is the amount or value of the subject matter in the Court of first instance and 'still in dispute' in appeal to the Supreme Court; under Clause (b) it is the amount or value of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought to be appealed from. The expression 'property' is not defined in the Code, but having regard to the use of the expression 'amount' it would apparently include money. But the property respecting which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to 'or other than' the subject-matter of the dispute. If in a proposed appeal there is no claim or question raised respecting property other than the subject-matter, Clause (a) will apply; if there is involved in the appeal a claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000 in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute Clause (b) will apply.' (underlined (here in ' ') by us).
A similar view was expressed in Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal : 3SCR198 where while considering the provisions of Clauses (a) & (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution their Lordships observed:--
'Under Sub-clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (1) of this Article an appeal lies on certificate of the High Court. That certificate may only be issued in cases in which the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal to the Supreme Court was or is not less than Rs. 20,000 or the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value.....'
9. If the valuation of the constructions made by the defendant-petitioner by the time the suit giving rise to this application was filed, is over Rs. 10,000 then the judgment and the decree of this Court would undoubtedly involve a claim or question respecting property of the value of over Es. 10,000.
10. The words 'Judgment and decree' occurring in Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution mean the judgment and decree of the High Court. We have, therefore, to find out whether on the date when the judgment or decree was passed by this Court or at the time of the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, there was or is involved a question relating to property of the value of more than Rs. 10,000. It is settled law that what has to be seen is the value pf the property at the time of the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. See: Surendra Nath v. Dwarka Nath, AIR 1917 Cal 496; Nasar Ahmad v. Mt. Saidunissa, AIR 1932 Lah 526; Krishnabai v. Framroz Edulji Dinshaw, AIR 1932 Bom 543; Sri Kishan Lal V. Kashmiro, (1913) ILR 35 All 445 and Dalgleish v. Domodar Narain Chaudhry, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1286.
11. Our answer to the second question, therefore, is that if on the date when the application for certificate was made to the High Court or on the date when the High Court passed the judgment or the decree, the valuation pf the property which is directly or indirectly Involved is Rupees 10,000 or Rs. 20.000 as the case may be, a certificate under Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution and the second part of Section 110, Civil P. C., would have to be granted. Let the record of the case be sent back to the Bench which had made the reference of this case.