- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kailasa Tevar v. Kasiviswanatham Chettiar
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Somayya, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The suits were filed by creditors to recover sums due on mortgage deeds or promissory notes executed by the petitioner (the first defendant). The petitioner was impleaded as the first defendant; other family members were defendants 2 to 7 (the second defendant being the petitioner's brother; defendants 3–7 were his paternal uncle's sons). There had been a family division in 1895 and a further division between the petitioner and his brother arising from Original Suit No. 36 of 1935. The family business remained joint with the petitioner managing it.
At trial the petitioner was ex parte. The trial Court exonerated some defendants and gave a decree against others in eight suits. Both parties appealed to the High Court, producing eleven appeals that were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment in which this Court held all members of the two branches liable; creditors accordingly obtained decrees against all defendants in the eight suits.
Before the appeals were heard, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) was enacted, creating a statutory scheme under which qualifying agriculturists could have debts scaled down. Defendants 2–7 filed applications for scaling down; those petitions were sent back to the trial Court for findings on whether they were agriculturists and whether any exceptions (notably a house-tax exception for annual rental value Rs.600 and upwards) applied. The District Judge found defendants 2–7 to be agriculturists and not within the Rs.600 house-tax exception; memoranda of consent setting out scaled amounts were filed (signed also by the petitioner's pleader). On return to this Court, creditors disputed the lower Court findings and contended that the petitioner (first defendant) should not receive benefits because he had not lodged his own application. This Court allowed scaling down for defendants 2–7 in accordance with the memoranda but held the decree against the petitioner undisturbed because he had not filed an application.
The petitioner subsequently moved to have the ex parte decrees set aside to enable him to apply under the Act; those applications were dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause for non-appearance. The current petitions seek leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against this Court's judgment that the petitioner, having failed to file his own application, is not entitled to benefits under the Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council can be valued and consolidated under Order XLV, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for purposes of obtaining leave (i.e., whether the statutory provision applies and the suits can be combined for valuation).
- Whether the decree of this Court, insofar as it concerns the petitioner (first defendant), is a decree of affirmance of the decision of the trial Court (relevant to appealability under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
- Whether the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council involves a substantial question of law—specifically, whether the petitioner's entitlement (or non-entitlement) to benefits under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act raises a question of law rather than a question of fact.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Appellant's) Arguments
- The petitions sought consolidation of the appeals for valuation purposes under Order XLV, rule 4 (respondents conceded applicability of that provision).
- The petitioner argued that the decree of this Court was not one of affirmance of the trial Court because applications under the Act by other defendants had been remitted to the trial Court, which returned findings favourable to the petitioner, and this Court declined to accept that finding only on the ground that the petitioner had not filed an application of his own. Therefore, petitioner contended the High Court did not affirm the trial Court on that question.
- The petitioner sought to raise on appeal whether he was an agriculturist and whether any statutory exceptions (e.g., house tax on buildings of annual rental value Rs.600 and upwards) applied—i.e., his entitlement to relief under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.
Respondents' Arguments
- Respondents conceded that Order XLV, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied and that the petitioner could consolidate appeals for valuation purposes.
- They argued that the decree of this Court, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is one of affirmance of the trial Court's decree because the petitioner did not in fact appeal and the result was the dismissal of any effective relief to him.
- Respondents maintained that the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the Act's benefits is essentially factual: they pointed to the prior division between the petitioner and his brother and to the claim that the petitioner was in possession of house property of annual rental value over Rs.600 and had been assessed to house tax—facts which would exclude him from the Act's benefits. Determination of these matters, they argued, requires factual investigation and not a question of law.
- Creditors (respondents in the scaling petitions) had also argued that the lower Court findings were incorrect and that the petitioner should not receive the Act's benefits because he had not himself filed an application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Tassaduq Rasul Khan v. Kashi Ram (Judicial Committee) | The principle that a High Court's dismissal of an appeal operates as an affirmance of the decree of the lower Court even if the High Court's reasoning differs from that of the lower Court; the effect of dismissal can be affirmance despite different grounds. | The Court relied on this authority to support its conclusion that, insofar as the petitioner's position was concerned (there being no appeal by him), the decree of this Court amounted to an affirmance of the trial Court's decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in two main analytical steps.
First, on procedural/valuation and the character of the decree: the respondents conceded applicability of Order XLV, rule 4 (allowing consolidation for valuation) and the Court accepted that the suits raised substantially the same questions and were appropriately consolidated for valuation—so the combined valuation would exceed Rs.10,000 in certain suits and therefore attract the relevant threshold for leave to appeal.
The key legal question was whether the decree of this Court was a decree of affirmance of the trial Court as regards the petitioner. The Court observed that the trial Court had earlier decided the matter and that the petitioner had not, in fact, appealed. Relying on section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Judicial Committee decision in Tassaduq Rasul Khan v. Kashi Ram, the Court reasoned that even when the High Court's reasons differ from those of the trial Court, a dismissal of the appeal by the High Court amounts to an affirmance of the trial Court. The Court analogised the present situation to cases where the trial Court either did not decide certain issues (and the High Court calls for findings) or where fresh rights were conferred by the Legislature: in either scenario, if the High Court's final result is dismissal leaving the trial Court's decree intact, the result is effectively an affirmance for purposes of appealability rules. Consequently, the Court concluded that its decree was one of affirmance vis-à-vis the petitioner.
Second, on whether the appeal involved a substantial question of law: the petitioner sought to raise his entitlement under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (whether he was an agriculturist and whether he was excluded by exceptions such as payment of house tax on buildings of annual rental value Rs.600+). The respondents' counter-affidavit asserted factual circumstances—namely, the petitioner's division from his brother following Original Suit No. 36 of 1935 and that the petitioner had been in possession of house property above the Rs.600 threshold and assessed to house tax during the relevant period. The Court noted that the parties themselves conceded the legal effect: if the petitioner had such house property and was assessed to house tax in the two years preceding October 1937, he would be excluded from relief; otherwise he would be entitled. Therefore, the question raised by the petitioner was a pure question of fact requiring factual investigation rather than a substantial question of law. Because the proposed appeal did not present a substantial legal question, leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was not justified.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council are DISMISSED with costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: the decree of this Court, insofar as it concerns the petitioner (first defendant), stands undisturbed and is treated as an affirmance of the trial Court's decision; the petitioner is not granted leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the grounds asserted.
- On legal questions: the Court concluded that the petitioner's asserted entitlement under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act raised factual issues (e.g., whether he had been assessed to house tax for property of the specified rental value) rather than a substantial question of law suitable for the Judicial Committee. The opinion does not assert or establish any novel legal principle beyond applying the cited authority on affirmance and reiterating that the entitlement under the Act depends on factual findings.
This summary reflects only the matters expressly set out in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.
Somayya, J.:— These are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the appeal is the petitioner. The suits out of which this and the connected petitions arise were filed by certain creditors for recovery of sums due on either mortgage deeds or promissory notes executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was the first defendant in the trial Court and the other members of his family were impleaded as defendants 2 to, 7. The second defendant is his brother and defendants 3 to 7 are his paternal uncle's sons.
In 1895 there was a division between the two branches and it is in evidence that there was also a division between the petitioner and his brother as a result of Original Suit No. 36 of 1935. The family business was kept joint and the petitioner was managing the business. The petitioner was ex parte in all the suits. The other defendants contended that they were not liable for the debts incurred by the first defendant. The trial Court exonerated some of the defendants and gave a decree against the others in all the eight suits. Both the parties filed appeals to the High Court and there were eleven appeals in all. All the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. This Court held that all the members of the two branches were liable in all the suits. In all the eight suits therefore the creditors succeeded in getting a decree against all the defendants.
By the time the appeals came on for hearing, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) had been passed by the local Legislature. By virtue of the provisions of that Act, certain benefits were conferred upon agriculturists to have their debts scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Applications were filed by defendants 2 to 7 for scaling down the debt. Even those defendants against whom the suits had been dismissed by the lower Court filed such applications to provide for the contingency, of the High Court passing a decree against them. According to a Full Bench decision of this Court, such applications must be disposed of by the High Court after calling for such findings as may be necessary from the lower Court. There was a dispute whether the defendants were agriculturists and entitled to the benefits conferred under the Act and also on the question whether the defendants were precluded from obtaining any relief by reason of certain exceptions, one of which is that a person who paid house tax in respect of buildings of the annual rental value of Rs. 600 and upwards is not entitled to the benefits under the Act even though he was an agriculturist. The petitions filed by defendants 2 to 7 were sent down to the trial Court for findings on these questions. It may be mentioned that the first defendant (the petitioner herein) was made a respondent in these petitions. When the matter went back before the lower Court, the first defendant appeared by a pleader. The District Judge held that the defendants were agriculturists and that it was not proved that they paid house tax on houses of the annual rental value of Rs. 600 or upwards. The District Judge was, therefore; of opinion that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits under the Act. As regards the amounts which would be due to each of the creditors in case the scaling down was permitted, both parties filed memoranda of consent showing what the amount would be if the debts were scaled down. In these memoranda the first defendant's pleader also signed. When the matter came back to this Court after receipt of findings from the lower Court, the creditors disputed the correctness of the findings of the lower Court and also raised the further contention that in any case the first defendant ought not to be given the benefit of the Act as he had not filed any application to have the debt scaled down. This Court rejected the contentions of the creditors on the merits and held that as regards defendants 2 to 7 the debts should be scaled down, and the figures given in the memoranda of consent filed by the parties were adopted. But as regards the first defendant—the petitioner herein—this Court held that, as he had not filed any application, the decree against him should stand undisturbed.
After this Court passed the decrees, the petitioner moved this Court to have the ex parte decrees against him set aside so that he might file applications under the Act and claim the benefits conferred thereby. We dismissed these applications holding that the applicant did not show sufficient reason for not appearing at the hearing of the appeals.
This petition and the connected petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the judgment passed by this Court holding that, as he had not filed any application of his own, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act.
The respondents concede that this is a case to which the provisions of Order XLV, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. The questions are substantially the same in all the suits, both in the lower Court and here; and they were all disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner is therefore entitled to consolidate all the appeals for purposes of valuation. In some of these suits the subject-matter of the claim is over Rs. 10,000, and it is conceded that even the difference between the amount of the decree and the amount due if the debt is scaled down is over Rs. 10,000. So, if all the suits are consolidated, there is no question that the total amount will be more than Rs. 10,000.
The only question is whether the decree of this Court is one of affirmance of the decision of the Court below and whether, in case it is held that the decree is one of affirmance, the appeal to His Majesty in Council involves a substantial question of law. The Court below passed a decree against the first defendant as he was the executant of the document. This Court affirmed the decree in fact there was no appeal by the first defendant at all. It is difficult to see how it can be said that the decree of this Court is not one of affirmance of the decision of the Court below. It is argued by the petitioner that the applications filed by the other defendants under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act were sent down to the lower Court, that Court returned a finding in favour of the applicants and also in favour of the petitioner, the first defendant, that when this Court refused to accept that finding as regards the petitioner on the ground that he had not filed an application of his own, this Court was not affirming the decision of the trial Court on that question and that therefore the decree of this Court is not one of affirmance of the decision of the Court below. There is no substance in this contention. The decree of this Court, referred to in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as the first defendant is concerned, is one of affirmance. As we have pointed out, there was in fact no appeal by the first defendant. In Tassaduq Rasul Khan v. Kashi Ram the Judicial Committee held that, even though the judgment of the High Court is not based upon the same grounds on which the first Court's judgment was based, if the decree passed by the High Court is one of dismissal, it would be a case of affirmance of the decision of the lower Court. Where some issues alone were decided by the trial Court, they being sufficient for the decision of that Court, and the High Court calls for findings on other issues and the findings are not accepted by the High Court and the result is one of dismissal of the appeal, the same result should, we think, follow. If the grounds of the decision of the High Court may be different from those of the decision of the trial Court, as held in the decision just cited, we fail to see how it could be said that in the latter case the result would be different. The case before us is no doubt one in which a fresh right was conferred upon certain classes of persons by Madras Act IV of 1938. The decision of the trial Court was in 1937. We fail to see any difference between a decision in cases where no finding was given by the trial Court on certain issues and findings are called for but not accepted by the High Court and the decision of the rial Court is in consequence affirmed by this Court, and the case where a fresh right is given by the Legislature and on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Act the two Courts differ and the appeal is dismissed. We are therefore of opinion that the decree of this Court is one of affirmance of the decision of the lower Court.
The next question is whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The only question of law that the petitioner seeks to raise is whether he is an agriculturist and not excepted by the exceptions referred to above. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, they point out that the petitioner had become divided from his brother (the second defendant) as a result of Original Suit No. 36 of 1935, Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruvarur, and that the first defendant was during the relevant period in possession of house property of an annual rental value of more than Rs. 600 and was assessed to house tax. They say that, even if the second defendant, his brother, had been found to be entitled to the benefits of the Act, it does not follow that the petitioner, the first defendant, should also be entitled to the same benefits. The determination of this question involves an investigation of facts. There is no question of law involved. If the petitioner had during the two years preceding October 1937 house property of the annual rental value of more than Rs. 600 and was assessed to house tax in respect of such buildings then it is conceded by the petitioner that he is not entitled to the benefit under the Act, and it is equally conceded on the other side that if otherwise the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Act. Thus the right of the petitioner does not involve any question of law, but involves only a pure question of fact. Thus, there is no room for the argument that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. These petitions are, in our opinion, unsustainable. It is said that an appeal has been filed by a creditor against the decision of this Court and that it has been admitted. But that, in our opinion, does not confer on the petitioner a right which he does not otherwise possess.
The petitions are dismissed with costs.
N.S
Alert