GARIKAPATTI VEERAYA versus N. SUBBIAH CHOUDHURY

GARIKAPATTI VEERAYA versus N. SUBBIAH CHOUDHURY

The petitioner had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court at the time of the institution of the suit, which was not taken away by Article 133 of the Constitution. The right of appeal, being a substantive right, survived the substitution of the Federal Court by the Supreme Court and was protected under Article 135. Therefore, the special leave petition should be allowed.

Parties
Petitioner: Garikapatti Veeraya; Respondent: N. Subbiah Choudhury; Attorney General for India: M. C. Setalvad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Special Leave Petition / Application for Special Leave to Appeal Under Article 136
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Right of Appeal, Vested Rights, Interpretation of Constitution Articles 133 and 135
Civil Law Constitutional Law Right of Appeal Vested Rights 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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garikapatti Veeraya

Petitioner

N. Subbiah Choudhury

Respondent

M. C. Setalvad

Attorney General for India

Procedural Posture

Civil Special Leave Petition / Application for Special Leave to Appeal Under Article 136

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court under pre-Constitution law and whether Article 135 of the Constitution confers a right to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the valuation being less than Rs. 20,000.
  2. 2 Whether Article 133 of the Constitution applies retrospectively to take away vested rights of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court is a successor to the Federal Court for the purposes of vested appellate rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court at the time of the institution of the suit, which was not taken away by Article 133 of the Constitution. The right of appeal, being a substantive right, survived the substitution of the Federal Court by the Supreme Court and was protected under Article 135. Therefore, the special leave petition should be allowed.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Special leave granted on usual terms.
  • Petitioner will have costs from respondents Nos. 1 and 2.