1952 (4) TMI 46 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of cross-appeals.
2. Definition of "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
3. Competence of appeals against remand orders.
4. Interpretation of judicial precedents and their applicability.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Cross-Appeals:
The appeals in question were cross-appeals from the same order, which was essentially an order of remand. The maintainability of these appeals was questioned based on a precedent set by the Division Bench in the case of 'KUNWARLAL SINGH v. SMT. UMADEVI, ILR (1946) Nag 482'. The Court expressed doubt about the correctness of this precedent and referred the matter to a Full Bench to decide whether an order of remand passed by a Single Judge in a Second Appeal amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. Definition of "Judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent:
The Court examined the legal significance of the term 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The opinion recorded by Hidayatullah J. provided an exhaustive treatment of the subject, referencing decisions from various High Courts in India, the Federal Court, and the Privy Council. The Court noted that the term 'judgment' had been interpreted differently across jurisdictions and that there was no settled definition. The Court ultimately held that the term 'judgment' means a decision that affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability, whether final, preliminary, or interlocutory.

3. Competence of Appeals Against Remand Orders:
The Court discussed whether an appeal lies against an appellate judgment under the Letters Patent, specifically focusing on remand orders. It was noted that remand orders that merely remit an issue for trial or order some evidence to be taken do not amount to a judgment. However, where the Court sets aside a decree and makes a binding order on the merits of the controversy, remitting the case for trial according to its decision, such an order must be treated as a judgment.

4. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:
The Court analyzed various judicial precedents, including those from the Privy Council, High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Bombay, Lahore, Patna, Allahabad, and Rangoon. The Court noted that different High Courts had taken varying approaches to the definition of 'judgment'. The Court also discussed the impact of the Privy Council's decision in the 'DAKORE TEMPLE CASE' and other relevant cases. The Court concluded that the term 'judgment' should not be limited to final judgments but should include decisions that conclusively determine the rights of the parties in the action.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the term 'judgment' under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent includes decisions that affect the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability, whether final, preliminary, or interlocutory. Consequently, remand orders that set aside a decree and make a binding order on the merits of the controversy are considered judgments and are appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The question referred to the Full Bench was answered in the affirmative, allowing for the maintainability of the cross-appeals in question.