http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ASHO DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DUKHI SAO & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1974

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2048            1975 SCR  (1) 611  1974 SCC  (2) 492

ACT: Letters  Patent of the Patna High Court,  Clause  10--Appeal under--From  Judgment of single Judge of the High  Court  in first  appeal--Restrictions imposed by S. 100, Code of Civil Procedure,  1908, whether applicable--Held, appeal  lies  an both questions of fact and of law.

HEADNOTE: The  plaintiff/appellant  filed  a money  suit  against  the defendant  for  recovery of Rs. 7,865 .70 due  from  him  on account of sale of grains and Rs. 1,512.90 as interest.  The defendant   admitted  the  purchase  of  grain  but   denied stipulation of interest contending that he had borrowed  Rs. 6,000/-  from the plaintiff for the marriage of  the  grand- daughters  at  the rate of 12 annas per hundred  per  month. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit.  In a first appeal to the High Court, the single Judge allowed it and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court.   Against  this  judgment of  the  single  Judge  the plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent Appeal.  The  question, whether  a  Bench of the High Court in an  appeal  from  the judgment  of a single Judge of that court in a first  appeal could  consider all matters which a single Judge could  have decided and is not limited by the restrictions imposed by s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was referred to by  Full Bench. By majority, the Full Bench held that the findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding on them and they cannot go into those questions in a Letters Patent Appeal. On appeal by certificate, this Court set aside the  judgment of the full Bench of the High Court and HELD: (i) The limitations on the power of the Court  imposed by Ss. 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot  be made  applicable  to an Appellate Court  hearing  a  Letters Patent  Appeal from the judgment of a single Judge  of  that High Court in a first appeal from the judgment and decree of the  Court  subordinate to the High Court,  for  the  simple reason that a single Judge of the High Court, is not a Court subordinate  to the High Court.  In view of the decision  of this  Court  in  Alapati Kasi  Viswanathan  v.  A.  Sivarama Krishnayya and others and the consistent view held by almost all  the  High Courts on the question  under  consideration,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

this appeal must succeed. [613 C, G 614 D] Alapati Kasi Viswanathan v. A. Sivarama Krishnayya and  Ors. C. A, No. 232 of 1961 decided on January 11, 1963 followed. Ladhi  Prasad  Jaiswal  v. Karnal Distillery  Co.  Ltd.  and others [1964] 1 S.C.R. 270, applied. Umrao Chand v. Bindraban Chand I.L.R. 17, All. 475 ; Mulpura Venkataramayya v. Devabhaktuni Kesavanarayana A.I.R. 1963 A. P.  447 at p. 448 (F.B.) ; M/s. Baldeo Das Ram  Narayana  v. Smt.   Maina Bibi and another 76 (C.W.N.) 996, at  p.  1002; Nilkanth  Mahaton  and  others v. Munshi  Singh  and  others A.I.R.  1965  Pat. 141 ; Maimoon Bivi and another v.  O.  A. Khajee Mohindeen and another A.I.R. 1970 Mad. 200 at p.  203 ;  Velji Bhimsey & Co. v. Bachoo Bhaidas I.L.R. 48 Bom.  691 at p. 696; Pt.  Devi Charan v. Durga Pershad & Ors.   A.I.R. 1967  Delhi 128 at p. 130 ;-and Bawa Singh v. Jagdish  Chand and others A.I.R. 1960 Punjab 573 at pp. 574 575 approved. Ramsarup  Singh  v. Muneshwar Singh and others  A.I.R.  1964 Pat. 74 overruled. Jugal Kishore Bhandani v. Union of India (1965) Bihar L.J.R. 24, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1758  of 1967. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 1st September, 1959  of  the Patna High Court in First Appeal  No.  146  of 1955. 612 S.  C. Aggarwala, S.S. Bhatnagar and V. J. Francis, for  the appellant. D. Goburdhan, for respondents nos. 17-3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN   REDDY,  J.-The  question  in  this  appeal   by certificate is whether a Bench of the High Court of Patna in an appeal from the judgment of a Single Judge of that  Court in  a first appeal can consider all matters which  a  Single Judge  could  have  decided  and  is  not  limited  by   the restrictions  imposed  by  s.  100  of  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure. A few facts may be stated in order to better comprehend  the question  posed before us.  The plaintiff/appellant filed  a money  suit  against  the  defendant  for  recovery  of  Rs. 7,865/7/-due  from him on account of sale of grains and  Rs. 1,512/19/- as interest.  The defendant admitted the purchase of  grain  from  the appellant  but  denied  stipulation  of interest.   The  case  of  the defendant  was  that  he  had borrowed Rs. 6,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage  of the grand-daughters at the rate of 12 annas per hundred  per month.   The  Trial Court, after considering  the  evidence, decreed the suit.  In a first appeal to the High Court,  the Single Judge allowed it and reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.  In the judgment it was observed:               (a)  "The  court  below  seems  to  have  been               influenced  by the statement of the  defendant               in paragraph 5 of the written statement  where               he averred that he sometimes purchased  grains               from the plaintiff.  But this statements of no               consequence."               (b) "The non-examination of the defendant  and               nonproduction   of  the  account  books   were               immaterial."               (c)  "The  three  witnesses  examined  on  her                             (appellant)  behalf  have  been  found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

 to   be               unreliable.  She has adduced no other evidence               in support of the claim." Against  this  judgment of the Single  Judge  the  plaintiff preferred  a  Letters  Patent appeal.  In view  of  a  sharp conflict  of  decisions  on the scope of clause  10  of  the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the question earlier set  out was referred to a Full Bench.  In the  Full  Bench, two  Judges Narasimham, C.J., and R. K. Choudhary, J.,  took the  view that the findings of fact by the Single Judge  are binding on them and they cannot go into those questions in a Letters  Patent appeal. in this view they followed  Ramsarup Singh  v. Muneshwar Singh and Others(1) as laying  down  the correct  law.  The view taken in the Division Bench case  of Jugal  Kishore Bhadani v. Union of India(2) to the  contrary was  held  to  be too wide.  U. N. Sinha, J.,  gave  a  dis- senting  judgment.   The  view taken  by  him  is,  however, consistent  with the consensus of opinion of the other  High Courts  as  also of this Court which unfortunately  was  not brought  to  the notice of the learned Judges of  the  Patna High Court probably because it does not seem to have  caught the  eye  of any of the law reporters.  Clause,  10  of  the Letters  Patent  of  the Patna High Court  is  analogous  to clause 15 of (1) A.I.R. 1964 Patna 76. (2) (1965) Bihar L.J.R. 24. 613 other  Chartered  High  Courts,  namely,  Calcutta,  Madras, Bombay  or clause 10 of the Allahabad High Court.  There  is no  dispute that an appeal lies to a Division Bench  of  the High Court from the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court in  appeal from a judgment and decree of a court subject  to the superintendence of the High Court.  The only question is whether  the  power of a Division Bench  hearing  a  Letters Patent appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court or under the analogous provisions in the  Letters Patent of other High Courts is limited only to a question of law  under s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure or  has  it the  same  power  which  the Single Judge  has  as  a  first Appellate Court in respect of both questions of fact and  of law.   The limitations on the power of the Court imposed  by ss.100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable  to an Appellate Court hearing a  Letters  Patent appeal  from  the judgment of a Single Judge  of  that  High Court in a first appeal from the judgment and decree of  the court  subordinate to the High Court, for the simple  reason that  a  Single  Judge  of the High Court  is  not  a  Court subordinate  to the High Court.  This Court in Ladli  Prasad Jaiswal  v.  Karnal  Distillery Co.  Ltd.  &  Others(1)  had occasion  to  observe that a Single Judge deciding  a  first appeal may be a Court immediately below the Court hearing  a Letters Patent appeal, but he is not a Court subordinate  to the  High  Court.  As long ago as  1895,a  similar  question arose under the provisions of Chapter XLII of Act No. XIV of 1882  which were analogous to the provisions of ss. 100  and 101  of  the  Code  of Civil  Procedure.   A  Bench  of  the Allahabad High Court consisting of Edge, C.J., and  Banerji, J., in Umrao Chand V. Bindraban Chand(2), after noticing the contention  that the appeal before them could not  be  dealt with  in  a same way in which the first appeal to  the  High Court might be dealt with would place the appeal under s. 10 of  the Utters Patent in the same position as an  appeal  to which  Chapter XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure  applies, held  that  no such limitation would apply  because  Chapter XVII  limits  the right of appeal from a  decree  passed  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

appeal  by  a  Court subordinate to the  High  Court.   They observed  that  the appeal to the High Court having  been  a first appeal and not an appeal to which Chapter XVII of  the Code  of Civil Procedure applies, the parties to the  appeal are entitled to question not only the law, but the  findings of  fact of the Judge of that Court from whose  judgment  or decree  that appeal had been brought under clause 10 of  the Letters  Patent.   It would be otherwise, if the  appeal  to that  Court had been an appeal to which Chapter XVII of  the old Code of Civil Procedure applied.  To the same effect are the  decisions  ill Mulpura Venkataramayya  v.  Devabhaktuni Kesavanarayana(3);  Messrs Baldeo Das Ram Narayana  v.  Smt. Maina  Bibi  &  Another(4) which followed  the  decision  of Andhra Pradesh High Court and disagreed with the decision of the  Patna  High Court in Ramswarup  Singh’s  case  (supra); Nilkanth  Mahaton  and others v. Munshi Singh  &  Others(5); Maimoon  Bivi  and  another  v.  O.  A.  Khajee  Mohideen  & Another(6);  Velji Bhimsey & Co. v. Bachoo Bhaidas  (7),  in which it was observed (1) [1964] 1, S.C.R. 270. (2) I.L.R. 17, All. 475. (3) AIR (1963) A.P. 447 at P. 448 (F.B.) (4) 76 C.W.N. 996 at p. 1002 (5) AIR (1965) Pat. 141. (6) AIR (1970) Mad, 200 at p. 203. (7) I.L.R. 48 Bom. 691 at p. 696. 614 that  under clause 15 of the Letters Patent an  appeal  lies from that decree, without any limitation being imposed  upon the  powers  of the Appeal Court and the whole  decree  lies open  before the Court; Pt; Devi Charan v. Durga  Pershad  & Ors. (1) and Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand and others. (2)  We may  also mention that a five-Judges Bench of this Court  in Alapati Kasi Viswanathan v. A. Sivarama Krishnayya and  Ors. (3)-an  unreported  judgment-had dealt  directly  with  this question.  Wanchoo, J., speaking for the Court observed :               "The  first  contention  urged  before  us  on               behalf  of the appellant is that  the  Letters               Patent  Bench  was not authorised  in  law  to               reverse the concurrent findings of fact of the               Subordinate Judge and the learned Single Judge               of  the  High Court.  It is submitted  that  a               Letters  Patent  appeal  stands  on  the  same               footing   as  a  second  appeal  and  it   was               therefore not open to the Letters Patent Bench               to reverse the concurrent findings of fact  of               the two courts below.  We are of opinion  that                             this  contention  is not correct.   A  Letters               Patent  appeal from the judgment of a  learned               Single  Judge  in a first appeal to  the  High               Court  is not exactly equivalent to  a  second               appeal  under  s.  100 of the  Code  of  Civil               Procedure,  and  therefore it cannot  be  held               that a Letters Patent appeal of this kind  can               only  lie on a question of law and not  other-               wise.  The matter would have been different if               the Letters Patent appeal was from a  decision               of  a learned Single Judge in a second  appeal               to the High Court.  In these circumstances  it               will be open to the High Court to review  even               findings  of fact in a Letters  Patent  appeal               from a first appeal heard by a learned  Single               Judge,  though generally speaking the  Letters               Patent   Bench  would  be  slow   to   disturb

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

             concurrent findings of fact of the two  courts               below.   But  there  is no doubt  that  in  an               appropriate   case  a  Letters  Patent   Bench               hearing an appeal from a learned Single  Judge               of  the High Court in a first appeal heard  by               him  is  entitled to review even  findings  of               fact.    The  contention  of   the   appellant               therefore  that the Letters Patent  Bench  was               not in law entitled to reverse the  concurrent               findings of fact must be negatived." In  view  of this decision and the consistent view  held  by almost  all the High Courts in this country on the  question under consideration, this appeal must succeed. We  accordingly set aside the judgment of the Full Bench  of the  Patna High Court and remand the matter for being  heard and   disposed   of  in  accordance  with   law.    In   the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. S.B.W.                                         Appeal allowed. (1)  AIR (1967) Delhi 128 at p. 130. (2)  A.I.R. (1960) Punjab 573 at pp. 574-575. (3)  C.A. No. 232 of 1961 decided on January 11, 1963. 615