Vested right of appeal and deed construction: pre-Constitution appeal rights survived, and an absolute land transfer was upheld.

A pre-Constitution vested right of appeal survived under Article 135 because the Federal Court had jurisdiction immediately before the Constitution commenced, so the right was not extinguished by the new constitutional scheme. The deed of 1867 was construed on its express terms as an absolute transfer of the Sangam lands to the defendants' branch, given in exchange for property rights, with no reservation of inheritance or right of reversion. The plaintiff's attempt to treat the transfer as provisional failed, and the claim to recover possession of the disputed lands was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable under the Constitution by reason of the surviving jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the transitional provisions. (ii) Whether the deed of 1867 conferred absolute title to the Sangam lands on the defendants' branch or only a provisional arrangement requiring return of the lands.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable under the Constitution by reason of the surviving jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the transitional provisions.

Analysis: Article 133 was held inapplicable because it was prospective and governed appeals from High Courts established under the Constitution. The matter was instead governed by Article 135, since immediately before the commencement of the Constitution the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a reversing decree of the High Court where the property value exceeded the relevant threshold. The right of appeal had already accrued when the High Court decree was passed, and the transitional provisions, including the Adaptation of Laws Order, preserved that accrued right rather than extinguishing it on the abolition of the Federal Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the vested right of appeal was not lost on the coming into force of the Constitution.

Issue (ii): Whether the deed of 1867 conferred absolute title to the Sangam lands on the defendants' branch or only a provisional arrangement requiring return of the lands.

Analysis: The deed was construed according to its plain terms. It recorded that the Sangam lands were given in lieu of the donee's share in the Peta Velapur Mahal properties, and it expressly stated that no right of inheritance remained in the donor's branch. The document did not speak of maintenance, did not reserve any right to reclaim the lands, and did not support the theory that the transfer was conditional upon later delivery of other properties. The earlier litigations did not decide the present title to the specific lands covered by the deed.

Conclusion: The deed effected an absolute transfer of the disputed lands to the defendants' branch, and the plaintiff's claim to recover them failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside, the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored, and the plaintiff's claim to possession of the disputed properties failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Constitution vested right of appeal survives under Article 135 where the Federal Court had jurisdiction immediately before the Constitution commenced, and a deed must be construed by its express terms without implying a conditional grant where the document shows an absolute transfer in exchange for other property rights.

---