The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless there is an express or implied bar curtailing the rights of appeal, the court should uphold the right of appeal and interpret provisions conferring a right of appeal in a reasonable, practical, and liberal manner.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration before us is as to whether an appeal shall lie to a Bench of Two Judges under S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the judgment and decree of a learned single judge rendered under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Appeal was preferred against the judgment in L.A.A. 101 of 1990 under S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act along with a petition under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 899 days in filing the appeal. When the delay petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, Bench expressed doubt as to whether the appeal itself would be maintainable.

3. According to the learned Judges, S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act does not provide a further appeal to the Division Bench against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge. It was stated, S.54 provides only one appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Since several second appeals are pending before the Division Bench it was felt that the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench. Accordingly the matter was placed before the Full Bench. ie to a B Act, an appeal shat 4. Appellate was the second claimant in L.A.R. No. 90 of 1983. Judgment was delivered by the Principal Sub Judge, Alleppey on 11.3.1988. Against the said judgment and decree claimant preferred appeal before this Court as L.A.A. 101 of 1990 under S.54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Appeal was dismissed by a learned single judge on 21.1.1992. Against the said judgment claimant filed A.F.A. 109 of 1994 under S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act along with a petition for condonation of delay.

4. Counsel for the appellant Sri. D. Krishna Prasad contended that appeal is maintainable under S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act before a Bench of Two Judges. According to him, award of the Land Acquisition Court is a decree within the meaning of S.26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that an appeal would lie before the High Court under S.54 of the Act. According to counsel, since the appeal was heard by a single judge as per S.3(13)(b) of the High Court Act, further appeal would lie to a Bench of Two Judges under S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

5. Learned Judges who referred the matter felt that since the appeal Js a creature of the statute the maintainability or otherwise of the appeal should be considered within the framework of S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which confers an appeal to the High Court and further appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned Judges stressed the words 'such appeal' as well as the words 'decree of the High Court passed on such appeal aforesaid'. Reference was also made to a decision of the Supreme Court in S.A. Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1442. Learned Judges also referred to an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 16632 to 16668 of 1982 and to the decision of the Madras High Court in Manavikraman Tirumalpadi v. Collector of Nilgiris, AIR 1919 Mad 626. Learned Judges disagreed with the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. In Mahli Devi v. Chander Bhan, AIR 1995 Delhi 293, where the Court took the view that appeal before a Bench of Two Judges would lie under Letters Patent.

6. In order to examine this question it is necessary to understand the meaning and scope of Ss.54 and 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vis-a-vis S.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act. We may extract S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act for easy reference.

"Appeals in proceedings before Court -

Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything 10 the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any decree of the High Court passed on "such appeal as aforesaid" an appeal sha