9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation of Article 135 of the Constitution. 3. Examination of the deed of 1867 and its implications on property rights. 4. Analysis of previous litigation related to the properties in dispute. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution: The primary issue raised was whether the appeal was maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution, given that the value of the property in question was below Rs. 20,000. The argument presented by the respondents hinged on the stipulation in Article 133 that appeals to the Supreme Court require a subject-matter value of not less than Rs. 20,000. The court had to consider if this Article applied to the case at hand. 2. Interpretation of Article 135 of the Constitution: The court examined whether Article 135 provided jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for appeals from High Court decrees made before the Constitution came into force. Article 135 states, "Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law." The court concluded that Article 133 did not apply to this matter because the language is prospective, referring to High Courts established under the Constitution. The Federal Court had jurisdiction over such matters before the Constitution, and thus, the Supreme Court inherited this jurisdiction under Article 135. 3. Examination of the Deed of 1867 and its Implications on Property Rights: The court closely examined the deed of 1867, which was central to the dispute over the Sangam properties. The deed was executed by Narsinga Rao in favor of Krishna Rao, and it was argued whether the properties were given absolutely or merely for maintenance. The trial court found that the properties were given absolutely, a finding that was reversed by the High Court. The Supreme Court scrutinized the language of the deed, noting that it explicitly stated that Krishna Rao's branch had no further claim of inheritance on the properties. The court found no basis for the High Court's interpretation that the properties were given provisionally or conditionally. 4. Analysis of Previous Litigation Related to the Properties in Dispute: The court reviewed the history of litigation involving the properties, including a declaratory decree in 1925 and a subsequent suit in 1936. The earlier suits established that Krishna Rao's branch was the heir to the properties left by Yeshwant Rao. The Supreme Court noted that the properties now in dispute were covered by the deed of 1867 and had always been in the possession of the defendants' branch as owners since that time. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's claim to recover possession of these properties was unfounded. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable under Article 135, as the jurisdiction was exercisable by the Federal Court before the Constitution. On the merits, the court found that the deed of 1867 granted absolute ownership of the Sangam properties to Krishna Rao's branch, rejecting the High Court's interpretation. The decree of the High Court was reversed, and the trial court's decision dismissing the plaintiff's suit was restored, with costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.
|
