Vaithilinga Mudaliar and Others vs T. Somasundaram Chettiar and Twenty Two Ors.

John Wallis, Kt., C.J.—In this case, the Plaintiffs sued as next reversioners on the death of the widow of the alleged last male holder and joined various Defendants who were in possession of properties which, they alleged, formed part of the estate of the last male owner. These were really different causes of action against the Defendants, but they were allowed, according to a well-established practice, to be joined in the same suit. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs against the alienees of the several items of property. These alienees and the other Defendants filed separate appeals in the High Court, and the appeals of some of the Defendant alienees were allowed on the ground that the items in question were not shown to have formed part of the estate of the last male owner. Although several separate appeals were filed, in accordance with Rule 105 of the Civil Rules of Practice, only one appellate decree was drawn up. Some of the appeals of the Defendant''s alienees which were allowed by us relate to items of property which are said to bo of less value than Rs. 10,000, and it is objected by these Defendants as Respondents to the petitions that, in these circumstances, the Petitioners are not entitled to a certificate u/s 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We think that the fact that only one appellate decree was drawn up in all these appeals cannot affect the rights either of the Appellants or the Respondents in those appeals with reference to a further appeal to His Majesty in Council and that the applications must be considered as if a separate decree had been passed in each appeal. Otherwise, the effect of the Civil Rules of Practice would be to interfere with the right of appeal or the right to retain the judgment of this Court without appeal, both very valuable substantive rights, as has often been pointed out. This is a matter with which we have no power to interfere by means of the Civil Rules of Practice.

Their Lordships then considered the evidence relating to the value of the subject-matter of each appeal and disposed of the petitions filed for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.