1965 (8) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court to hear and dispose of appeals
- Interpretation of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act and Kerala High Court Act
- Vested right of appeal and its implications
- Effect of procedural changes on the right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133

Analysis:

The Supreme Court judgment dealt with the jurisdictional issue of whether an appeal could be heard and disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court. The appellant's suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits was dismissed by a single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The primary legal question was whether the appeal could be entertained by a single Judge, as per Article 133 of the Constitution. Parliament had not passed any law rendering the judgment of a single Judge appealable to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that it generally does not interfere with findings of fact unless grave errors are present. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such errors, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

Regarding the interpretation of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act and the Kerala High Court Act, the appellant argued that the right to have appeals heard by a Division Bench under the former Act was not expressly taken away by the latter Act. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the right of appeal is a vested right that cannot be taken away retrospectively without an express provision to that effect. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the right to prefer an appeal under Article 133 does not vest if the appeal is heard and decided by a single Judge of the High Court.

The judgment also addressed the appellant's assertion that a contesting respondent, in pari delicto with the plaintiff, should not have been allowed to question the maintainability of the suit. The Court declined to entertain this argument since it was not raised in the lower courts. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no vested right existed for the appellant to have the appeal heard by more than one judge of the High Court, thereby affecting the right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133.