PUNNAYYA P A CHOUDARY S G MACKINNON Vs. RT REV VICTOR PREM SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of Letters Patent Appeals arises out of a suit filed by the two plaintiffs in O. S. No. 3555 of 1980 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The two plaintiffs sued the eleven defendants for a declaration that the ad-hoe committee constituted by the Bishop of Medak Diocese to manage the affairs of the suit school was illegally constituted and the management of the said school legally belongs to St. John's Church Educational Society of which the 8th defendant is the Secretary and Correspondent. The suit was resisted by the Bishops, the first defendant and his successor-in-interest, the 11th defendant and the other defendants excepting the 8th defendant, who is sailing with the plaintiffs. The defence of the defendents is that the suit school belongs to Medak Diocese of which the Bishop is the undoubted head. They contend on that basis that the ad-hoc committee constituted by the Bishop in exercise of his authority as the Head of the Church, can alone lawfully manage the suit school. The trial court after framing necessary issues in the suit and after recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the evidence, found in favour of the authority of the Bishops and dismissed the suit filed by the two plaintiffs and supported by the 8th defendant. Against the decree of dismissal, the two plaintiffs preferred A. S. No. 44 of 1983, while the 8th defendant preferred A. S. No. 41 of 1983, to the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeals filed by the two plaintiffs and the 8th defendant are still pending before the lower appellate Court. Pending hearing of those appeals, the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant apolied for and obtained orders of injunction under Order 39, rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code in I A. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1983. The Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (hereinafter called the lower appellate Court) by its order of injunction restrained the Bishops and the other defendants supporting them, from interfering with the management of the suit school by the abovesaid Educational Society Having been aggrieved by these orders of injunction passed by the lower Appellate Court the Bishop and his supporting defendants have preferred C. M. A. Nos. 109, 114, 115 and 116 of 1983 Ramarao, J., who heard those appeals allowed them by his order dated 17th March, 1963 and vacated the orders of injunction passed by the lower appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by Ramarao, J. in the above C. M. As. the respondents- plaintiffs and the 8th defendant have preferred the present appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The respondents in these Letters Patent Appeals, who are the contesting defendants in the suit and the appellants in the above mentioned C. M. As. raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals filed by the two plaintiffs and the 8th defendant under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. They contended before us that these appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of Ramarao, J. reversing the order of the lower appellate Court, are legally incompetent and that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals. As we find substance in this preliminary objection raised by the respondents to these Letters Patent Appeals, we took first for consideration the question of law whether these Letters Patent Appeals are competently filed without going into the merits of the matter.

(3.) Common Law, which prides 10 much on providing a legal remedy for the redressal of every legal grievance, strangely recognises no inherent right of appeal. Not even one right of appeal is considered a necessary requirement of the American due process. Although as Justice Frankfurter observed in Henry Ferguson v. Moor Mc Cormack Lines, disappointed litigants ana losing lawyers like to have another go at it, the right of appeal, not being inherent right of common law, can only be conferred by a statute and can only be exercised by a party entitled to do so, in accordance with the terms of the enabling Statute. In Sandback Charity Trustees v. North Staffers Third Sly Co., Lord Bramwell said. 'An appeal does not exist in the nature of things. A right to appeal from any decision of any tribunal must be given by express enactment. In Meenakshi v. Subrahmanya, the Privy Council observed :