Judgement

CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ. This appeal is from a reversing decree of the Bombay High Court in a suit for the possession of certain immovable properties which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur. The value of the properties has been found to be over Rs. 10,000.

2. The original decree was on 20-12-1946. The decree was of the High Court allowing the plaintiff s claim was on 8-11-1949. The defendants applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on 6-1-1950. The High Court directed the trial court to find the value of the property which was the subject matter of the suit at the time of the suit and On the date of the passing of the decree in appeal.

On 22-1-1951 the lower court ascertained the value as stated above. The High Court thereafter granted leave to appeal on 1-10-1951, overruling the objections raised by the plaintiff to the grant of such leave.

3. The maintainability of this appeal has been questioned before us by Mr. Dadachanji, learned counsel for the respondents in a somewhat lengthy argument. His main contention was that Art. 133 of the Constitution applied to the case, and as the value is below Rs. 20,000 no appeal can be entertained. It is correctness of this argument that we have to consider.

4. On the date of the decree of the High Court, the defendants had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court, as the properties were of the requisite value, and on 6-1-1950 they sought a certificate of leave to appeal, which was bound to be granted. The Constitution establishing the SC as the final appellate authority for India came into force on 26-1-1950. Did the vested right become extinguished with the abolition of the Federal Court? If the Court to which an appeal lies is altogether abolished without any forum substituted in its place for the disposal of pending matters or for the lodgment of appeals, the vested right perishes no doubt.

We have, therefore, to examine whether the Constitution which brought the SC into being makes any provision for the appeal for a reversing decree of the High Court prior to the date of the Constitution respecting properties of the value of Rs. 10,000 and more being entertained and heard by the SC

5. Article 135 is in these terms:

"Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the SC shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law".

6. Article 133 runs as follows:

"(1) An appeal shall lie to the SC from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies

(a) that the amount or value of the subjectmatter of the dispute in the court of first instance and still in dispute an appeal was and is not less than twently thousand rupees or such other sum as may be specified in that behalf by Parliament by law; or

(b) that the judgment , decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value; or

(c) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the SC; and where the judgment, decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the court immediately below in any case other than a case referred to in sub-clause (c), if the High Court further certifies that the appeal involves some sub-stantial question of law..........

7. It is reasonably clear that Art. 133 does not apply to this "matter". The language is prospective, and the judgment, decree or final order from which the appeal is to be taken is that of a High Court in the territory of India - that is a High Court established under the Coustitution. The territory of India comprises the territory of the States. Article 214 says that there shall be a High Court for each State, and clause (2) thereof provides that

"the High Court