Skip to content


Sri Kishan Lal Vs. Kashmiro and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All445
AppellantSri Kishan Lal
RespondentKashmiro and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (1908), section 110 - appeal to hit majesty in council--requirements to he fulfilled before grant of certificate--decree involving some question respecting property of the value of ten thousand rupees or upwards. - - the paragraph to which we have referred is very wide and general, and it seems to us that it was clearly inserted in the section to meet a case like the present......because the decree of this court involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question respecting property of value exceeding rs. 10,000. the question in this case was whether an arbitration award was binding upon musammat kashmiro, one of the respondents to the proposed appeal. it is admitted that the award relates to property far exceeding rs. 10,000 in value. this court held, reversing the decision of the court below, that the award was not binding on the lady for reasons stated in this court's judgment. it is the correctness of this decision which is challenged in the proposed appeal. if the decree of this court becomes final, the question of the validity of the award will also become final as regards property other than the property in dispute in the present suit. it is, therefore,.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the court below exceeded Rs. 10,000, but that of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is Rs. 8,767-2-0, that is, below Rs. 10,000. The decree of this Court reversed the decree of the court below. It is contended that, under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has a right to appeal to His Majesty in Council, because the decree of this Court involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question respecting property of Value exceeding Rs. 10,000. The question in this case was whether an arbitration award was binding upon Musammat Kashmiro, one of the respondents to the proposed appeal. It is admitted that the award relates to property far exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value. This Court held, reversing the decision of the court below, that the award was not binding on the lady for reasons stated in this Court's judgment. It is the correctness of this decision which is challenged in the proposed appeal. If the decree of this Court becomes final, the question of the validity of the award will also become final as regards property other than the property in dispute in the present suit. It is, therefore, clear that the decree of this Court does involve a question relating to property of a value exceeding Rs. 10,000.

2. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that unless there is at the time of the presentation of the application for leave to appeal a dispute pending in some court respecting other property of the value of Rs. 10,000, leave cannot be granted under Section 110. We are unable to agree with this contention. The first paragraph of the section provides for cases in which the value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the subject-master in dispute on appeal to His Majesty amounts to Rs. 10,000, or upwards. The second paragraph was intended to provide for cases in which, although the value of the subject-matter of the suit or subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty was below Rs. 10,000, the decree or final order involved, directly or indirectly, a claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000, or upwards. The paragraph to which we have referred is very wide and general, and it seems to us that it was clearly inserted in the section to meet a case like the present. The principle which underlies a question of this kind was discussed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Macfarlane v. Leclaire (1862) 15 Moo. P.C., 181, and it seems to us that, in view of the opinion of their Lordships in that case, the second paragraph of Section 596 of the Code of 1882, which corresponds to Section 110 of the present Code, was enacted. A similar view to that held by us appears to have been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Musammat Aliman v. Musammat Hasiba (1897) 1 0. W.N., (Notes) 93 and Ananda Chandra Bose v. Broughton (1372) 9 B.L.R., 423. As in the present case the decree involves a question respecting property of value exceeding Rs. 10,000, and as the decision of the court below was reversed by this Court, the case, in our opinion, fulfills the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we so certify.


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