JUDGMENT :- The suit was to declare the right of the plaintiff who is the appellant, in respect of two trees which he had purchased from the 3rd defendant, and to allow him to cut and remove them, and in the alternative, and if the above prayer cannot be granted, to direct the 3rd defendant to refund the sum of Rs. 100 which he paid as the; price of the trees. On the contentions of the first defendant repudiating the right to the trees the first court denied the former relief and allowed the latter. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge as incompetent, on the ground that the plaintiff had been granted the alternative relief.

2. I am clear that the view of the Judge is wrong and unsupportable. The plaintiff was aggrieved by the primary relief of declaration of his right to the trees being denied to him, and the fact that he was given the alternative relief is no compensation if he is entitled to the other. If the decision of the first court is erroneous, the only course open for rectification of the error is by way of appeal and this was what the plaintiff pursued. The denial of the primary remedy amounted to a decree within the meaning

Click Here to Read the rest of this document