The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of appeal to a particular forum is a substantive right and is not lost by alteration in the law unless provision is made expressly in that behalf or a necessary implication arises.

Balasubramanyan, J.

These appeals are filed under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first of the appeals is filed against the decree in O.S.23 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichur. The suit giving rise to that appeal was filed on 30.12.1991. The suit was one for declaration that the sale deed impugned in the suit was not binding on The plaint schedule property of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had title and possession over the property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the reliefs claimed in the plaint at Rs. 28,000/-. On the suit being dismissed on 29,2.1996, the plaintiff filed the appeal in this Court, on 29.5.1996.

2. Under S.12 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, all appeals from the decree of a District Court or a Subordinate Judge's Court lay to High Court save as provided in S.13 of the Act. Originally, S.13(1) provided that the appeals from decrees in suits, the subject matter of which did not exceed Rs. 7,500/-, lay to the District Court. The limit was raised to Rs. 10,000/- with effect from 26.3.1959 by virtue of Act 12 of 1959. The limit under S.13(1) for appeals to the District Court was again raised to Rs. 25,000/- by the Kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 6.1.1984. The limit was further raised to Rs. 2 lakhs by the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 6 of 1996, with effect from 27.3.1996. When this appeal was filed in this Court on 29.5.1996, the office sought a clarification as to whether in view of the amendment brought in by Act 6 of 1996, the appeal would be maintainable in this Court. Court explained that since the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed before the coming into force of Act 6 of 1996, going by Ss.12 and 13 of the Civil Courts Act as they stood at that time, the appeal lay to this Court. He clarified that the amendment will apply only to suits filed after the amendment came into force. He also requested that the matter to be posted before the Bench.

3. When the question of maintainability of the appeal in this Court came up before the learned Single judge, counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Clara v. Augustine (1984 KLT 377) rendered at a time when a similar doubt was raised on the amendment brought about to S.13 of the Civil Courts Act by the Amendment Act of 1984. The learned Single Judge felt that though the decision of the Division Bench covered the situation, in view of the innumerable instances of a similar nature that are likely to arise, it would be better if a Division Bench were to consider the question once more and pronounce on the maintainability of the appeal in this Court. The matter was thereafter placed before the Division Bench. Considering the importance of the question involved notice was given to all counsel practising in this Court indicating that any counsel inclined in that behalf are free to throw light on the question involved. Thereafter, arguments were heard not only from counsel for the appellant but also from other counsel who wanted to make submissions in that behalf.

4. Second of the appeals was filed in this Court on 30.5.1996 challenging a final decree passed in O. S.1 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tellicherry. The judgment of the Court below was rendered on 8.8.1995. The valuation shown in the plaint exceeded Rs. 25,000/- but did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. The officer therefore, raised the objection referred to above, to the maintainability of the appeal in this Court. Counsel represented the appeal bringing to the notice of the Court the decision of the Division Bench in Clara v. Augustine (1984 KLT 377) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Garikapathi v. Subbiah Chowdhary (AIR 1957 SC 540). The office sent up that appeal also before the Bench in view of the pendency of the earlier reference pending before this Court.

5. There cannot be any doubt that the leg