The jurisdiction of the District Court to hear appeals against decrees in suits of the value of Rs. 15000/- is not affected by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Civil Courts Act 1972, which makes section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 applicable.

A. GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question for my consideration in this appeal is whether the district Judge is competent to hear the appeal from a decree in a suit the value of which is over Rs. 7,500 after the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts act I of 1966 came into force. The appellant herein filed the suit O S. No. 37 of 1972 against the respondent on 13-7-1972. The value of the suit was Rs. 9300/- The suit was decreed on 3-7-1973 by the Principal Subordinate judge, Srikakulam for a sum of Rs. 8000/- He disallowed interest and costs. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred the appeal A. S. No. 198/73 in the Court of the Dist. Judge, Srikakulam on 7-12-1974. The appeal was allowed. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an application for execution of the decree in the court of the Subordina te Judge, Srikakulam. The judgment debtor, the respondent herein, filed a counter stating that the decree passed by the Additiona district and Sessions Judge was void and inoperative, since he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It was submitted that the suit against which the appeal was filed was instituted before 1-11-1972, and its valuel was more than Rs. 7. 500/- and against the decree in such a suit an appeal lies only to the High Court. Therefore, it was contended that the decree holder could not execute the appellate decree since it was a nullity but that he could execute only the decree in the suit, in O. S. NO. 37 of 1972.

( 2 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellate decree in as. No. 198/73 was a nullty and cannot be executed. Therefore he dismissed the execution petition. Questioning that order, the decree-hoider has filed this appeal. Before I discuss the question raised in this appeal, I have to state that the respondent herein did not raise any objection before the District judge, when the appeal was pending, that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal He. raised the objection only in the execution petition. Under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1873, as amended by the AP. Act I of 1966, an appeal was provided to the District Court against a decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge if the value of the suit did not exceed Rs. 10000/-or such amount as was fixed by the State government not exceding Rs. 10000/- Under G. O. Ms. No. 571 Home (Coart-I dated 7-3-1966 the State Government fixed that the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the suit should not be more then Rs. 7500/-for the purpose of appeal to the District Court from the decrees and orders of the subordinate Judges and the District Munsiffs. Subsequently the Andhra pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 was enacted and it came into force on 1-11-1972 Under S. 34 of that Act the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act 1873 was repealed. Under S. 17 of that Act an appeal lies to the District court against a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, where the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than Rs. 15000/- whea O. S No. 37 of If 72 was filed on 13-7-1972 the Andhra Pradesh civil Courts Act 1873 was in force. During the pendency of that suit, the civil Courts Act. 1972 came into force on 1-11-1972. O. S. No. 37/72 was disposed of on 3-7-1973 by which date the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts act 1972 came into force, giving jurisdiction to the District Judge to hear appeals from decrees of the Subordinate Judges if the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the suit was not more than Rs. 15000/- therefore on that date, the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the decree In O. S. No. 37/1972 whose value was only Rs. 9300. Relying upon I. Venkata Reddy Vs I. Ayodhyamma (I) and Kameswa- ramma v. M/s Radha Krishnam and Co, (2) it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the right of appeal is a vested right that it is governed by the law prevailing at the time of the commencement of the suit or proeeding, and that it is not lost by alteration in the law unless provision is made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document