2003 (2) TMI 486 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court filed u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Summary:

Issue 1: Letters Patent Appeal Against Judgment u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
The core issue in this appeal is whether a letters patent appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court filed u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appellant's counsel argued that such an appeal would be governed by Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which bars appeals from orders that are not decrees. The counsel cited various cases to support this contention, emphasizing that the judgment under challenge was not a decree and hence not appealable under Section 104.

The respondents' counsel, however, argued that the matter is covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, which supports the maintainability of such appeals. The Court noted that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a special Act, and Section 299 provides for an appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court examined Sections 295 and 299 of the Act, which outline the procedure for contentious cases and appeals from orders of the District Judge, respectively. It was observed that although contentious proceedings do not result in a decree, the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable. The right of appeal in contentious proceedings is found in Section 299 of the Act itself, not in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court further analyzed various High Court judgments and noted the differing views on whether orders in contentious probate proceedings are decrees. It was highlighted that some High Courts prepare formal decrees, while others do not. The Court concluded that Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar appeals under special statutes like the Indian Succession Act.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate jurisdiction of superior courts is not excluded simply because a subordinate court exercises special jurisdiction. The Court referred to the principles of statutory interpretation and previous judgments, including Shah Babulal Khimji v. Javaben D. Kania, which supported a broader interpretation of the term "judgment" under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court concluded that the order passed by the Single Judge was appealable to the Letters Patent Bench. Consequently, the objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was rightly overruled by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court was directed to decide the letters patent appeal expeditiously.