l Leave Petition Civil No 890 of 1964
Petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree dated December 16 1963 of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil First Appeal No 54 of 1956
Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava Zalim Singh Meeratwal and Naunit Lal for the petitioner M C Setalvad and I N Shroff for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
The petitioner applies for special leave to appeal under article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated December 16 1963 in Civil First Appeal No 54 of 1956 on two grounds 1 that the judgment of the High Court involves a claim or question respecting property of not less than Rs 20000 in value and the High Court erred in refusing a certificate under article 1331 b of the Constitution and 2 that the case is otherwise fit for appeal to the Supreme Court
The material facts bearing on the plea raised are these
The petitioner commenced on July 2 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge First Class Ajmer an action against the respondents claiming a decree for Rs 10665 and for rendition of accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased by him through the agency of the respondents
The petitioner claimed that 104 bales of cotton purchased by him were sold by the respondents as his agents on May 14 1948 for Rs 27267136 and without settling the account the respondents delivered towards that amount a demand draft for Rs 11000 which was encashed and four cheques of the aggregate value of Rs 13000 which because of lack of arrangement with the respondents  bankers were not encashed and the petitioner on that account was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs 10665 being the amount due on the foot of dishonoured cheques and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per annum between July 2 1947 to July 1 1951 less Rs 4000 subsequently received by him
The petitioner also claimed a decree for the balance of the price
753 after giving credit for commission dalali and godown charges incurred by the respondents as his agents and as he was not in a position to know the amounts due to or disbursed by the respondents he claimed a decree for rendition of account
The subject matter of the suit was therefore a claim for Rs 10665 due to the petitioner on a cause of action arising on cheques dishonoured and a claim for the balance of the price due as may be ascertained on taking accounts
The trial Court passed a decree directing that account be taken for ascertaining the amount due in respect of the entire transaction of 104 bales and for taking accounts appointed a Commissioner
The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that the transactions in respect of which the claim was made by the petitioner were those of an unregistered firm constituted by the petitioner and another person named Duli Chand and the suit was barred because the firm was not registered
An application filed by the petitioner for certificate under article 133 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court
The judgment of the High Court proceeds entirely upon appre ciation of evidence and on the findings recorded the petitioner s suit must stand dismissed
But counsel for the petitioner urged that the judgment of the High Court directly involves a claim or question respecting property of value not less than Rs 20000 and he was entitled as a matter of right to a certificate from the High Court under article 1331 b of the Constitution
This argument is sought to be presented in two ways
It is urged in the first instance that the judgment of the High Court involves a question relating to the right of the petitioner respecting 104 bales of cotton belonging to him and sold by the respondents for an amount exceeding Rs 27000
Secondly it is urged that pursuant to the order of the Trial Court a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner reported that Rs 12089146 with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from May 14 1948 were due to the petitioner and as the amount due to the petitioner on that footing was not less than Rs 20000 at the date of the decree of the High Court the judgment of the High Court involved a claim respecting property of that amount or value
In our view the contention raised by the petitioner under either head has no substance
It is conceded and in our judgment counsel is right in so conceding that the petitioner could not seek a certificate under cl
a 754 of article 1331
The claim in the court of first instance did not Teach Rs 20000 and one of the conditions for a certificate under that clause being absent the claim could not be maintained
To attract the application of article 1331 b it is essential that there must be omitting from consideration other conditions not material a judgment involving directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less that Rs20000
The variation in the language used in cls
a and b of article 133 pointedly highlights the conditions which attract the application of the two clauses
Under cl
a what is decisive is the amount or value of the subject matter in the court of first instance and still in dispute in appeal to the Supreme Court under cl
b it is the amount or value of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought to be appealed from
The expression property is not defined in the Code but having regard to the use of the expression amount it would apparently include money
But the property respecting which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute
If in a proposed appeal there is no claim or question raised respecting property other than the subject matter cl
a will apply  if there is involved in the appeal a claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs 20000 in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute cl
b will apply
In the present case the subject matter in dispute was a claim for money
A part of that claim was definite and the rest was to be ascertained on taking accounts
The judgment did not involve any claim or question relating to property in addition to or other than the subject matter in dispute of the value of Rs 20000
It was admitted by the petitioner in his plaint that the bales of cotton were sold by the respondents as his agents
The right of the respondents to sell the bales was not in dispute
what was challenged was the right of the respondents to retain the price received by them
It cannot be said that a judgment dealing with a claim to money alleged to be due from an agent for price of property belonging to the principal sold by the agent either directly or indirectly involves a claim or question respecting property which is sold
Nor does the alternative ground assist the petitioner
It is true that by his petition the petitioner claims restoration of the decree of the Trial Court and by adding interest at the rate of 6 per annum to the petitioner s claim as awarded under the report 755 of the Commissioner the claim of the petitioner on appeal exceeds Rs 20000
But this is still the subject matter in dispute  the Judgment does not involve any claim or question respecting property in addition to or other than the subject matter of the suit
The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs
Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Sub Judge claiming a decree for Rs 10665 and any balance ascertained as due to him on taking account being proceeds of sales made by the respondents as the petitioner s agents
The trial court passed a decree directing that an account be taken of the amount due and appointed a Commissioner for the purpose
In appeal the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit
An application filed by the petitioner for a certificate under article 133 was rejected by the High Court
Upon a petition for special leave to appeal tinder article 136 it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment of the High Court involved a claim or question respecting property of a value exceeding Rs 20000 and the petitioner was entitled as a matter of right to a certificate from the High Court under article 1331b
HELD  Under cl
a what is decisive is the amount or value of the subject matter in the court of first instance and still in dispute in appeal to the Supreme Court under el
b it is the amount or value of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sough to be appealed from
The expression property is not defined in the Code but having regard to the use of the expression  amount it would apparently include money
The property respecting which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute
If in a proposed appeal there is no claim or question raised respecting property other than the subject matter cl
a will apply  if there is involved in the appeal a claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs 20000 in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute el
b will apply
754 B E In the present case the claim in the court
of first instance did not reach Rs 20000 and therefore a certificate could not be granted under article 1331a
754 A It could not be said that a judgment dealing with a claim to money alleged to be due from an agent for price of goods belonging to the principal sold by the agent involved a claim or question respecting the goods which had been sold
Furthermore although the petitioner s claim on appeal including interest exceeded Rs 20000 this was still the subject matter in dispute the judgment did
not involve any claim or question respecting property in addition to or other than the subject matter of the suit
Article 1331b was therefore also not applicable
754 G H 755 A 752