Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a probate case concerning the will of Smt. Anandi Devi, the widow of the deceased owner of the property. The appellant, Kamla Devi, contended that her mother was not in a sound state of mind to execute the will and that she had inherited the property along with her sisters after their mother's death. The District Judge dismissed the suit, finding the will to be tampered with. The High Court's dismissal of the first appeal led to a Special Appeal by Respondent No.1, which was challenged by the appellant on the grounds of maintainability under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court analyzed the implications of Section 100A, which bars further appeals from judgments of a Single Judge, and concluded that the Special Appeal was not maintainable. The court referenced previous judgments to clarify that the right of appeal is a substantive right that cannot be altered without clear legislative intent. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the statutory bar imposed by Section 100A.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Appeals - Special Appeal under Section 100A - The Supreme Court held that Section 100A bars further appeals from judgments of a Single Judge, thus rendering the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 not maintainable. The court emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory and cannot be taken away without express enactment, and Section 100A does not have retrospective effect (Paras 22-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 before the Rajasthan High Court was maintainable under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Special Appeal was not maintainable under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Section 100A
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Letters Patent Appeal
- vested right of appeal
- statutory bar on appeals
