Skip to content


Mahamad Beary and anr. Vs. T. Hassan Kutty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 858 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad280; (1950)2MLJ623
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 12 and 12(1)
AppellantMahamad Beary and anr.
RespondentT. Hassan Kutty and anr.
Appellant AdvocateN. Kotyswara Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Narayana Pai, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases Referred and Abdul Rasak v. Abdul Rahim
Excerpt:
- - 304. in the former case there was a new safe providing for the right of appeal against an order relating to a surcharge passed by a court under the surcharge rules framed under the madras district municipalities act. a subsequent enactment like article 226 of the constitution cannot operate to take away a vested right which had accrued to the respondent under the order of the subordinate judge abovementioned......1946-1 m.l.j. 480 a.i.r.1915 mad. 304. in the former case there was a new safe providing for the right of appeal against an order relating to a surcharge passed by a court under the surcharge rules framed under the madras district municipalities act. it was held that no appeal lay against an order made by the court; in an application filed before the enactment of that rule. in the latter case the effect of madras act xv [15] of 1943 which amended act iv [4] of 1938 and gave a right of appeal retrospectively in respact of orders passed from and after 27-10-1939 was declared to be that the right of appeal so conferred was not available to an order passed before that date. the learned judges say that the right of appeal conferred by the new enactment could not take away the vested right.....
Judgment:

Bajamannar C.J.

1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara dated 5-4-1949 passed in C. M. A. no. 6 of 1949 under Section 12(1), Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, The application has been made under Article 226, Constitution of India. A preliminary objection was taken that the application was not sustainable because the order sought to be quashed became final long before Article 226 Game into force. The respondent's counsel relied upon the rule of law that a judicial order which has become final according to the state of the law at the time it was passed is not open to interference by way of appeal or revision or other proceedings by virtue of a subsequent amendment of the law. The respondent relied upon two rulings of this Court in Examiner of Local Fund Accounts v. Subramania, Mudliar, I. L R (1943) Mad. 501 : A. I. R 1943 Mad. 208 and Abdul Rasak v. Abdul Rahim, 1946-1 M.L.J. 480 A.I.R.1915 Mad. 304. In the former case there was a new safe providing for the right of appeal against an order relating to a surcharge passed by a Court under the surcharge rules framed under the Madras District Municipalities Act. It was held that no appeal lay against an order made by the Court; in an application filed before the enactment of that rule. In the latter case the effect of Madras Act XV [15] of 1943 which amended Act IV [4] of 1938 and gave a right of appeal retrospectively in respact of orders passed from and after 27-10-1939 was declared to be that the right of appeal so conferred was not available to an order passed before that date. The learned Judges say that the right of appeal conferred by the new enactment could not take away the vested right which had accrued as a consequence of the final order passed before the prescribed date, Applying the principle laid down in these cases, to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the respondent became entitled to the benefit of the final order of the Subordinate Judge passed on 5-4-1949. It is conceded that on that date there was no further appeal or revision or application by way of certiorari open to the petitioners. A subsequent enactment like Article 226 of the Constitution cannot operate to take away a vested right which had accrued to the respondent under the order of the Subordinate Judge abovementioned.

2. We uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the application with costs.


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