SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Printed For: Abhiraj Singh, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1957 SCC OnLine SC 28 : 1957 SCR 488 : AIR 1957 SC 540

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE S.R. DAS, C.J. AND N.H. BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P.
SINHA AND S.K. DAS, JJ.)

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 170 of 1955

GARIKAPATI VEERAYA … Petitioner;
Versus
N. SUBBIAH CHOUDHRY & OTHERS … Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 53 & 54 of 1956* , decided on February 1,
1957
Advocates who appeared in this case:
M.S.K. Sastri, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
T.V.R. Tatachari, Advocate, for Respondents 1 & 2;
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, for Assisting the Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.R. DAS, C.J.— This is an application for special leave to appeal
from the judgment passed on February 10, 1955 by the High Court of
Andhra. The suit out of which this application arises was instituted on
April 22, 1949 in the sub-court of Bapatla, which was then within the
jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The judgment of the trial court
was passed on November 14, 1950 dismissing the suit. The plaintiff
appealed. On October 1, 1953 the Andhra State was formed and a new
High Court was established under Section 28 of The Andhra State Act,
1953 (Act 30 of 1953), and apparently the appeal stood transferred to
the High Court of Andhra under the provisions of Section 38 of the
same Act. On March 4, 1955 the High Court of Andhra accepted the
appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The
application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed on the
ground, inter alia, that the value of the property was only Rs 11,400
and did not come up to the amount of Rs 20,000. In this application
the petitioner contends that the judgment being one of reversal and the
value being above Rs 10,000, he was entitled, as a matter of right, to
come up to this Court on appeal and as that right has been denied to
him by the High Court, this Court should, in exercise of its discretion,
grant him special leave to appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
2. It will be convenient at this stage to refer to the statutory
provisions relating to appeal from any final judgment, decree or order
of a High Court in India to a superior court. This was regulated by the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Printed For: Abhiraj Singh, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the

suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its
decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal.
(v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a
subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary
intendment and not otherwise.
24. In the case before us the suit was instituted on April 22, 1949,
and on the principle established by the decisions referred to above the
right of appeal vested in the parties thereto at that date and is to be
governed by the law as it prevailed on that date, that is to say, on that
date the parties acquired the right, if unsuccessful, to go up in appeal
from the sub-court to the High Court and from the High Court to the
Federal Court under the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction)
Act, 1947 read with clause 39 of the Letters Patent and Sections 109
and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided the conditions thereof
were satisfied. The question for our consideration is whether that right
has been taken away expressly or by necessary intendment by any
subsequent enactment. The respondents to the application maintain
that it has been so taken away by the provisions of our Constitution.
25. In construing the Articles of the Constitution we must bear in
mind certain cardinal rules of construction. It has been said in Hough v.
Windus24 that “statutes should be interpreted, if possible, so as to
respect vested right”. The golden rule of construction is that, in the
absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have
retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect
of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when
the Act was passed25 . The following observation of Rankin, C.J. in Sadar
Ali v. Dalimuddin at p. 520 is also apposite and helpful:“Unless the
contrary can be shown the provision which takes away the jurisdiction
is itself subject to the implied saving of the litigant's right”. In
Janardan Reddy v. State26 Kania, C.J. in delivering the judgment of the
Court observed that our Constitution is generally speaking prospective
in its operation and is not to have retroactive operation in the absence
of any express provision to that effect. The same principle was
reiterated in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay27 and finally
in Dajisaheb Mane v. Shankar Rao Vithal Rao28 to which reference will
be made in greater detail hereafter.
26. In the next place we must take into account the surrounding
circumstances that existed at the time when our Constitution-makers
framed the Constitution and for which provision had to be made by
them. In construing the Articles relating to the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court it is well to remember the several categories of persons who
were, at the date of the Constitution, interested in the right of appeal
from judgments, decrees or final orders of a High Court to a superior
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 64 Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Printed For: Abhiraj Singh, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51 1951 SCC 217 : (1951) SCR 344

52 (1905) AC 369

53 2 Inst 292

54 (1829) 6 Bing 253 : 31 RR 411

55
(1899) PD 236

56 (1864) 10 HLC 704 : 11 ER 1200

57 (1875) 1 Ch D 48

58 (1898) 2 QB 547

59
(1927) LR 54 IA 421

60
(1953) SCR 987

61 (1955) 2 SCR 1117

62 (1929) ILR 56 Cal 512

63 (1928) ILR 52 Mad 361

64
(1869) 6 Bom HCR 166

65 (1879) ILR 3 Bom 214

66 (1889) ILR 16 Cal 267

67 (1922) 1 AC 249

68 (1955) 2 SCR 872

69 1951 SCC 288 : (1951) SCR 474, 497

70
(1897) AC 22, 38

71
(1831) 2 Dow & Cl (HL) 480, 489 : 6 ER 806, 809

72 3 L.Edn. 232 at 234-235 : 6 Cranch 307

73 98 US 231 : 25 Lawyer's Edn. 231

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.