Vested right of appeal remains governed by the law on suit institution; later restrictions cannot retrospectively narrow second appeals.

A vested right of appeal is substantive and is governed by the law in force on the date the suit is instituted, unless later legislation clearly discloses an intention to take that right away. On that principle, the wider second appellate jurisdiction available under Section 602 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code continued to apply to a suit instituted before extension of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the restriction in Section 100 could not retrospectively curtail it. The article also notes that a concurrent or properly supported finding of fact, such as whether one person predeceased another, is ordinarily not disturbed in further appeal absent a clear basis for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restriction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied retrospectively so as to curtail the second appellate jurisdiction in a suit instituted before the Code was extended to Hyderabad; (ii) Whether the High Court could interfere with the finding that Vitha Bai predeceased Rukhma Bai.

Issue (i): Whether the restriction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied retrospectively so as to curtail the second appellate jurisdiction in a suit instituted before the Code was extended to Hyderabad.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a substantive and vested right, governed by the law in force on the date of institution of the suit, unless a later enactment clearly takes it away by express provision or necessary intendment. The Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, under Section 602, permitted a second appeal on questions of fact as well as law. Nothing in the extension of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to Hyderabad showed that Section 100 was intended to operate retrospectively so as to deprive litigants in pending matters of the wider appellate right already vested in them.

Conclusion: The second appellate jurisdiction in the present case continued to be governed by Section 602 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, and not by the restricted scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere with the finding that Vitha Bai predeceased Rukhma Bai.

Analysis: The finding turned on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including the revenue record and the testimony of the witnesses. The High Court preferred the trial court's view on the evidence, and in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court would not ordinarily disturb a competent finding of fact on a matter of this kind.

Conclusion: The finding that Vitha Bai predeceased Rukhma Bai was not shown to warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the decree restoring the plaintiffs' entitlement to possession remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested right of appeal is a substantive right governed by the law in force when the suit is instituted, and it is not taken away by a later procedural amendment unless the statute clearly so provides; therefore, a later restriction on second appeals cannot retrospectively curtail an earlier, broader appellate right.

---