1956 (4) TMI 76 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court dated 16-8-1954 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 1952.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over lands purchased in 1950 Sambat, allegedly with funds contributed by villagers, where the name of Dhayan Singh was entered as Benamidar. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and easement rights over the land, which was contested by the defendants.

2. Trial Court Decision:
The Trial Court found in favor of the defendants, holding that they were the proprietors of the land and dismissing the suit, denying the plaintiffs' easement rights.

3. District Judge's Decision:
The District Judge reversed the Trial Court's decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

4. High Court Decision:
Upon second appeal, the High Court concluded that the Benami transaction alleged by the plaintiffs was not proven, and the claimed easement rights were not established. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal and non-suited the plaintiffs, leading to the petition for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

5. Valuation Dispute:
A valuation dispute arose regarding the land, grass, and trees on the property. The Senior Sub Judge revised the valuation of the trees, considering various factors such as accessibility and market value, leading to a reduced valuation of the trees.

6. Subject-Matter Value and Fit for Appeal:
The petitioners argued that the subject-matter value exceeded Rs. 20,000, citing precedents regarding the appointment of commissioners. However, the High Court held that the Senior Sub Judge was justified in revising the valuation. The High Court also noted that the case did not involve any exceptional features warranting appeal to the Supreme Court.

7. Final Order:
The petition for a certificate to appeal was rejected, with costs awarded to the respondent. The High Court emphasized that the value of the plaintiffs' share in the land did not meet the threshold for appeal, and the case did not present significant public importance for Supreme Court consideration.