JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---At the admission stage of this appeal, a preliminary point was taken, whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court or before the District Court. In order to appreciate this contraversy, some facts are required to be noted.

2.The respondent/plaintiff is a landlord, after obtaining permission from the Rent Controller under Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, had issued the quit notice on or about 9-1-1974. As the defendant/appellant did not comply with the same, a suit came to be filed which resulted into decree for possession with a direction for mesne profits.

3.In the suit itself, by way of the arrears of rent and for mesne profits, definite prayer was made and it was valued at Rs. 3,490/-. The details and the break up thereof are to be found in para 3 of the judgment under which the learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter be placed before the learned Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench.

4.This direction came to be issued in view of the following decisions that have been referred to in the course of the judgement in paras 19 to 22.

These cases are:

(i) (Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamshedji)1, 20 Bom. 265.

(ii) (Shet Kavas Ji v. Dinshaji)2, 22 Bom. 963.

(iii) (Gopal v. Chimabai)3, A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 464.

(iv) (Ahmedbhai v. Badruddin)4, A.I.R. 1946 Bom. 356.

5.Later on the learned Judges have summarized the situation in para 25 and have expressed themselves of the view that the earlier decision of Kavasji v. Dinshaji is clearly contrary to the subsequent decisions in Gopal v. Chimabai and Ahmedbhai v. Badruddin.

6.Ibrahimji Issaji's case was pertaining to partnership, dissolution and rendition of accounts. On the basis of that at the end of the inquiry when the amount found due exceeded Rs. 5,000/- beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, it was held that the appeal lay to the High Court and not to the District Court.

7.The second of the cases as set out in para 20, page 14 of the judgement refers to a situation where the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 130/-. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the property in the suit was worth over a lakh of rupees and the liability came to be determined at Rs. 5, 729/- and that the defendant was indebted to the estate in the sum of Rs. 15, 199/- and on that basis a preliminary decree was drawn.

8.When appeal was preferred before the District Court against the said decree, it was returned for being presented to the High Court by the District Judge. While giving its finding and directing that the appeal lay to the District Court, the judgement of Ibrahimji Issaji's case referred to and correctness of its ratio was doubted.

9.As noted above, Ibrahim Issaji's case is contrary to the subsequent three decisions, i.e. Shet Kavasji v. Dinshaji; Gopal v. Chimabai and Ahmedbhai v. Badruddin, also follow that very line.

10.In this background, as per para 25, the learned Judges recorded their view as to the necessity of the reference and formulated the following question:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appeal would lie to the District Court or the High Court ?"

11.The learned Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute the present Full Bench for the purpose of considering the abovesaid question.

12.It is obvious from the discussion so far and the background that essentially we are called upon to decide and settle the controversy arising out of the decisions of Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamshedji, (96) 20 Bombay 265 as against the remaining three cases, i.e. Shet Kavas ji v. Dinshaji, (98) 22 Bombay 963, Gopal v. Chimabai, A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 464; and Ahmedbhai v. Badruddin, A.I.R. 1946 Bom. 356, referred to above.

13.It has been noted in Gopal v. Chimabai's case that the earlier decision, i.e. Ibrahimji Issaji's case was without any reference to section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is an admitted position that the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document