MADAN MOHAN PRASAD Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(PAT)-1960-9-1
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on September 14,1960

MADAN MOHAN PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BABU BRIJMOHAN SINGH VS. CHOUDHURY BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SANT RAM VS. RENU [LAWS(P&H)-1978-3-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This application is made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No, 445 of 1954, dated the 6th of May, 1959. The judgment of the High Court is not a judgment of affirmance, and if the requirement of valuation under Art. 133 of the Constitution is satisfied, the petitioners are entitled to a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. It appears that in the Trial Court the suit was valued at Rs. 35,447-9-0 by the petitioners who were the plaintiffs seeking to enforce their claim. The Trial Court decreed the suit in its entirety for a sum of Rs. 35,447-9-0 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit. The defendant appealed to the High Court which modified the decree of the Trial Court allowing the claim of the plaintiffs to the extent of half, namely, a sum of Rs. 17,723-8-0. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that no interest was allowed on this amount, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The plaintiffs now seek to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the High Court, and the question is whether the case satisfies the requirement of valuation under Article 133 of the Constitution. The value of the appeal to the High Court is Rs. 38,919 and odd and court-fee was paid by the defendant on this valuation. The valuation includes interest from the date of the Trial Court decree up to the date of the institution of the appeal in the High Court. A special ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal that the defendant should not be saddled with interest or with costs, and so the amount of interest and costs awarded by the Trial Court was made the subject-matter of the appeal to the High Court. In the circumstances of this case we think that the amount of costs and interest awarded by the Trial Court should be taken into account for the purpose of the valuation of the appeal to the Supreme Court. The position has been clearly stated by FazI Ali, J. in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Babu Brijmohan Singh v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 1941 Pat 255. It is true that in that particular case the Full Bench refused to grant a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council on the ground that the requirement of valuation was not satisfied. But we consulted the record of the First Appeal in that case, and we find that the memorandum of First Appeal was only confined to the amount of Rs. 9,141-5-0, which was the amount of the decree passed by the Trial Court, and there was no plea taken with regard to the costs of Rs. 1,131-6-0 which were awarded by the Trial Court in that case. The appeal to the High Court, therefore, did not comprise the sum of Rs. 1131-6-0 which was awarded as costs, and upon these facts it was held by the Full Bench that the requirement of valuation under Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not satisfied in that case. But the Special Bench made it clear that
"If the decree directs the defendant to pay interest from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of the decree, such interest being made part of the decretal amount, then if the defendant appeals against the whole decree, the interest being a part of the decree must be taken into consideration in determining the value of the subject-matter of the dispute in appeal."
The matter is very clearly put at page 258 of the report as follows :
"The crucial point then to be decided is what is going to be the subject-matter of dispute in the appeal and then find out its value. If the dispute between the parties is about a money claim, then whether the appeal is to be preferred by the plaintiff or by the defendant, all that we have to find out is what is the amount or value of the claim which will be in dispute in appeal. It we bear this in mind then there will be no difficulty in answering the question which we are called upon to answer in the present case, namely, whether the interest for the period between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of the High Court decree is to be taken into account in valuing the subject-matter of dispute in appeal. In my opinion the answer to this question is that in some cases it will be included, in others it will not. This may at first sight appear to be illogical, but in view of the authorities, which must guide us in the matter, I think that that is the true legal position. If the decree directs the defendant to pay interest from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of the decree, such interest being made part of the decretal amount, then if the defendant appeals against the whole decree, the interest being a part of the decree must be taken into consideration in determining the value of the subject-matter of the dispute in appeal. The defendant in such cases appeals against the entire amount for which the decree has been passed including the interest between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of the appellate decree. Again, where the appeal is directed only against the interest decreed, the defendant's case being that no interest should have been allowed at all, it is clear that in that case the amount of interest will determine the value of the appeal."
Applying the principle of this decision to the present case, we hold that the valuation of the subject-matter of the dispute at present is the amount of Rs. 38,919-10-0 less the amount of Rs. 17,723-12-6 pies, namely, a sum of Rs. 21,195 and odd, and hence the requirement of valuation under Article 133 of the Constitution is satisfied.
(2.)We accordingly hold that a certificate should be granted to the petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
(3.)We accordingly allow this application. There will be no order as to costs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.