- (1.) Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Nagpur passed in an appeal under S. 19 (1) (f) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) In exercise of the power conferred by S. 75 (A) of the Rules framed under the Act, the Central Government requisitioned on February 19, 1941, certain properties belonging to Hanskumar Kishanchand, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1954. As there was no agreement on the amount of compensation payable to him, the Central Government referred the determination thereof to Mr. Jafry, Additional District Judge, Khandwa under S. 19 (1) (b) of the Act. On March 31, 1943, Mr. Jafry pronounced his award, by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 as annual rent for the occupation of the premises. Against this award, there was an appeal to the High Court of Nagpur under S. 19 (1) (f) of the Act, and that was heard by a Bench consisting of Grille, C. J. and Padhye, J. By their judgment dated December 31, 1947, they enhanced the annual rent payable to the appellant by a sum of Rs. 3,250, and they also allowed certain other sums as compensation for dislocation of the High School which was being run on the property. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against this judgment to the Federal Court under Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the amounts disallowed. A similar application was also filed by the Government with reference to the enhancement of compensation. On August 25, 1949 both these applications were granted, and a certificate was issued that the appeals fulfilled the requirements of Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code- of Civil Procedure. That is how the two appeals come before us. Hanskumar Kishanchand is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1954, and the Union of India, in Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1954.
(3.) At the opening of the hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Solicitor-General to the maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1954 on the ground that the judgment of the High Court passed in appeal under S. 19 (1) (f) was an award and not a judgment, decree or order within the meaning of Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that accordingly the appeal was incompetent. If this contention is right, Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1954 preferred by the Government would also be incompetent. That, of course, does not preclude the Government from raising the objection as to the maintainability of the appeal, though the result of our upholding it would entail the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1954 as well. We accordingly proceed to dispose of the objection on the merits.;