Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against an order of the Madras High Court refusing to grant a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. The underlying dispute concerned premises at No. 29 South Masi Street, Madurai, where idols were located. Authorities appointed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act 11 of 1927 had held that the premises constituted a temple under that Act. The appellant, T.D. Gopalan, claimed that the property belonged to his family as private alienable property and filed an application in the District Court, later converted into a suit, seeking a declaration that the premises did not constitute a temple under Madras Act 19 of 1951. The District Judge, Madurai, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, holding that the premises did not constitute a temple. On appeal, the High Court reversed that decision and found that the premises constituted a public temple. The appellant then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) and (b), asserting that the value of the subject matter exceeded Rs. 20,000. The High Court dismissed the application on grounds that the subject matter, whether a private or public temple, had no market value and was incapable of valuation; that clause (b) did not apply because the judgment did not involve a claim respecting property of Rs. 20,000 or more; and that no substantial question of law arose. The Supreme Court focused on the first two grounds. It noted that the appellant had claimed the property belonged to the Thoguluva family, was purchased by his ancestor in execution of a decree in Suit No. 650 of 1882 for Rs. 1,060, and had been improved with additional structures let out to tenants; municipal property tax receipts suggested annual rental value of Rs. 1,126-6-0 in 1950 and Rs. 1,672.32 in 1961, which if capitalized at twenty times annual rental would exceed Rs. 20,000. The Court held that the High Court erred in assuming the property was incapable of valuation regardless of the plaintiff's claim. The correct approach was to value the subject matter of dispute with reference to the plaintiff's plaint claim; since the plaint asserted private alienable property, the property was capable of valuation. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case to the High Court to decide the leave application afresh, directing that the High Court could hold the valuation inquiry itself or remit it to the trial court. The respondents were ordered to pay costs.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Leave to Appeal - Article 133(1)(a),(b) - Valuation of subject matter for Supreme Court appeal - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133(1)(a),(b) - The dispute concerned whether premises were private alienable family property or a public temple under Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951; the High Court refused leave on the ground that the subject matter was incapable of valuation as a temple had no market value. The Supreme Court held that valuation must be ascertained from the plaintiff's plaint claim, and since the appellant claimed the property as private alienable property, it was capable of valuation; the High Court's contrary assumption was erroneous. The matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the leave application afresh in accordance with this principle (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in holding that the subject matter of dispute (private vs public temple) was incapable of valuation and therefore refusing certificate for leave to appeal under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of Constitution of India; and whether valuation should be determined by reference to the plaintiff's claim in the plaint.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order refusing leave, and remanded the case to the High Court to decide the application for leave in accordance with the observation that valuation must be based on the plaintiff's plaint claim as private alienable property. The High Court may hold the inquiry itself or remit to Trial Court to hold inquiry and report. Respondents ordered to pay appellant's costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- For leave to appeal under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of Constitution of India
- subject matter of dispute must be valued with reference to plaintiff's plaint claim
- property claimed as private alienable property is capable of valuation
- High Court cannot assume property is incapable of valuation solely because it may be a public temple
- inquiry into value may be directed under Order 45 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
