DAJISAHEB MANE AND OTHERS versus SHANKAR RAO VITHAL RAO MANE AND ANOTHER.

DAJISAHEB MANE AND OTHERS versus SHANKAR RAO VITHAL RAO MANE AND ANOTHER.

Article 133 does not apply to this matter as it is prospective; appellants had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court on the date of the High Court decree. Article 135 of the Constitution preserves the right to appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of such matters as the jurisdiction and powers were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the Constitution. Therefore, the appeal to the Supreme Court is competent. On merits, the plaintiff's claim to the disputed properties based on the 1867 deed is without foundation, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was correct.

Parties
Appellant: Dajisaheb Mane and others; Respondent: Shankar Rao Vithal Rao Mane and another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Reversing Decree of the Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Appeals, Vested Right of Appeal, Interpretation of Constitution Articles 133 and 135
Civil Law Constitutional Law Maintainability of Appeals Vested Right of Appeal Interpretation of Constitution Articles 133 and 135

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dajisaheb Mane and others

Appellant

Shankar Rao Vithal Rao Mane and another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Reversing Decree of the Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 133 of the Constitution applies to the appeal and if the appeal to the Supreme Court is competent.
  2. 2 Whether the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is preserved under Article 135 of the Constitution after the abolition of the Federal Court.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 133 does not apply to this matter as it is prospective; appellants had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court on the date of the High Court decree. Article 135 of the Constitution preserves the right to appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of such matters as the jurisdiction and powers were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the Constitution. Therefore, the appeal to the Supreme Court is competent. On merits, the plaintiff's claim to the disputed properties based on the 1867 deed is without foundation, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree of the High Court reversed.
  • Decree of the trial Judge restored with costs payable by the plaintiff throughout.