The second paragraph of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be read independently of the first paragraph.

Chatterji, J.

1. This is an application by the D. Hs. for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an appellate order dated 5-8-1948, of this Court which reversed the decision of the trial Court & dismissed the application for execution of a mortgage decree as barred by time.

2. The application for leave to appeal was filed on 4-10-1948, that is, before the Constitution of 1950 came into force & will, therefore, be governed by Sec.110, Civil P. C. This section provides:

"In each, of the cases mentioned in Clauses (a) & (b) of Sec.109, the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be ten thousand rupees or upwards, & the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be the same sum or upwards, or the decree or final order must involve directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value, & where the decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the Court immediately below the Court passing such decree or final order, the appeal must involve some substantial question of law."

The words "His Majesty in Council" must now be read as "The Supreme Court".

3 The order sought to be appealed from being one of reversal, the only question for consideration is whether the requirements of. Sec.110 as to value are satisfied. The original: mortgage suit which was instituted as far back as in 1916 was valued at Rs. 5,783/12/6 but the final mortgage decree which was passed in appeal by this Court on 21-9-1938, was for Rs. 67,247/4/9. The execution of this decree was held to Be barred by limitation by the order of this Court now sought to be appealed from. The amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal, therefore, is considerably over Rs. 10,000/-.

4. The provisions of Sec.110 as to value are contained in the first two paragraphs. the two paragraphs are separated by the word or & upon a plain grammatical construction, they appear, at first sight, to be independent of each other; in other words, the second para appears to be an alternative to the whole of the first. But on a closer examination, the true position seems to be otherwise, as I will presently snow.

5. The first para imposes two conditions (1) as to the value of the subject-matter off the suit & (2) as to value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal. Both these conditions must be fulfilled, as held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Motichand V/s. Ganga Prasad Singh, 29 IA 40; Mangamma V/s. Mahalakshmamma, 57 IA 56 & Rajendra Kumar V/s. Rash Behari, AIR (18) 1931 PC 125. In these cases their Lordships pointed out that the word "and" meant "and" & not "or", so that each of the two conditions had to be separately fulfilled. With regard to the last case, it may be further mentioned that though the High Court had granted a certificate that the requirements of Sec.110 were fulfilled, the Board, on the preliminary objection taken by the respondent, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the value of the subject matter of the suit, at the date of its institution, was below Rs. 10,000.00 &, therefore, the requirements of Sec.110 were not fulfilled.

6. The question then arises whether the second para. can be read independently of the first, in other words, whether it is an alternative to the whole of the first paragraph. In the second para. the words involve directly are wide enough to cover the actual subject matter in dispute. If, therefore, this para. is taken to be independent of the first, the result will be that an appeal will lie to the Supreme Court, subject, of course to the provisions of the third para. of the section, in every case where the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal is not less than Rs. 10,000/-, no matter what the value of the subject matter of the suit was. In that case, not only the first condition in the first para. would be rendered wholly nugatory, but this para.