Back
1914 Supreme(SC) 41
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DUNEDIN, LORD MOULTON, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
RAVI VEERARAGHAVULU - Appellant
Versus
BOMMA DEVARA VENKATA NARASIMHA - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court At Madras.
Decided On : Apr. 20; June. 18. 1914.
Solicitor for appellants:Edward Dalgado. Solicitor for respondent: Douglas Grant.
Second appeals to the High Court under Section 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, are limited to questions of law and procedure; the High Court cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts.
Headnote:(A) Rent Recovery Act, 1865 - Sections 9 and 11(3) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 - Sections 584 and 585 - Second appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of jurisdiction of High Court - A second appeal lies from the order of the District Court to the High Court unless the right is expressly taken away by legislation - However, under Section 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such appeals are strictly confined to questions of law and procedure - The High Court is prohibited from setting aside concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Collector and the District Court.
(B) Rent Recovery - Enforcement of leases - Where lower courts have concurrently held that a specific rent arrangement is permanent, the High Court cannot overturn this finding of fact to allow the landlord to revert to a different rent system, as such a determination is a question of fact and not a question of law.
Facts of the case:
A landlord brought summary suits to enforce the acceptance of leases by tenants for lands brought under wet cultivation. The tenants contended that a permanent cash payment system had replaced the previous produce-sharing system. The Collector and the District Court concurrently found that the cash arrangement was permanent and dismissed the suits. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that since there was no contract for wet cultivation rates, the landlord was entitled to claim produce-sharing rates.
Findings of Court:
The High Court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess by overturning concurrent findings of fact. The determination of whether the rent arrangement was permanent was a question of fact, and the High Court was incompetent to set aside this finding under the applicable procedural code.
Issues: Whether a second appeal was maintainable under the Rent Recovery Act and whether the High Court could set aside concurrent findings of fact under Section 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Sections 584 and 585 of the Code of Civil Procedure distinctly prohibit second appeals on questions of fact and confine the competency of the High Court to deal with questions of law and procedure. When two inferior courts have concurrently arrived at a finding of fact, the High Court cannot substitute its own view.
Result: Judgments and decrees of the High Court set aside and cases remitted to the Collector's Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals
- second appeal
- jurisdiction
-
appeals
-
land law
-
landlord and tenant
- rent recovery
- pattas and leases
-
landlord and tenant
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decrees of the High Court (October 13, 1908) reversing a judgment and decrees of the District Judge of Kistna (March 13, 1907) which affirmed a judgment and decrees of the Court of the Head Assistant Collector, Bezwada Division, Kistna District (August 24, 1906).
The respondent, under circumstances appearing from their Lordships’ judgment, brought before the Court of the Head Assistant Collector forty-nine summary suits under s. 9 of the MADRAS RENT RECOVERY ACT , 1865, against appellant raiyats to enforce the acceptance by them of pattas tendered in respect of their holdings. The Head Assistant Collector found that the pattas tendered were not in accordance with the agreed terms and dismissed the suits. Upon appeals by the respondent to the District Court, this decision was affirmed. The respondent then appealed to the High Court, which reversed the decree of the District Court. The learned judges agreed with the Courts below that it was clear from the muchalkas that there was no contract as to rates of rent payable for wet cultivation, but they held that there being no contract the respondent was entitled under s. 11, sub-s. 3, of the Madras Kent Recovery Act, 1865, to claim asara rates in respect of lands cultivated with wet crops; and that the pattas tendered were proper.
The judgment of their Lordships dealt only with the question of the right of appeal to the High Court; the arguments of counsel upon the other questions involved are not reported.
De Gruyther, K.C., and Parikh, for the appellants. The respondent had no right of appeal to the High Court, and the decisions of the District Court in the appellants favour were final and should be restored. The proceedings were summary pro ceedings under s. 9 of the MADRAS RENT RECOVERY ACT , 1865. By s. 50 an appeal is given to the Zillah Court, but it is provided by s. 76 that in proceedings under the Act there shall be no further appeal, except as allowed by s. 58. Sect. 58 gives the Collector power to revive suits in which judgment has been entered on default or ex parte, and this exception to
s. 76 is to be read as exclusive. The respondent had an option under s. 87 of the Act to proceed by suits in the Civil Courts, when the ordinary procedure as to appeals would have applied. The present proceed ings being under the provisions of a statute which gives no right of appeal to the High Court, that right cannot be inferred from general procedure enactments Rangoon Botatoung Company v. the Collector, Rangoon (( 1912) L. R. 39 Ind. Ap. 197.) ; Meenakshi Naidoo v. Subramaniya Sastri . (( 1887) L. R. 14 Ind. 4p. 160.)
[MR. AMEER ALI The appeal in Parthasarathi Appa Row v. Narasayya (( 1910) L. R. 37 Ind. Ap. 110.) was in a suit under s. 9 of the Act of 1865.]
In that appeal the present point was not taken. But even if an appeal lies from the District Court to the High Court it can only be where the circumstances come within s. 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. In the present case there were concurrent findings of fact by the Collectors Court and the District Court, and an appeal is excluded by s. 585 of the Act of 1882 Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri (( 1890) L. R. 17 Ind. Ap. 122.)
Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the respondent. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1865 an appeal from the Zillah Judge lay, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, s. 372, to the Sudder Court upon questions of law. The effect of later legislation has been to substitute the District Court for the Zillah Court and the High Court for the Sudder Court. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, s. 584, an appeal lies from the District Court except where the right is expressly taken away by statute. The right of appeal to the High Court in proceedings under the MADRAS RENT RECOVERY ACT , 1865, was held to exist in Veeraswamy v. Manager, Pittapur Estate (( 1902) I. L. R. 26 Madr. 518.), which decision affirmed Kotappa v.
