Judgment :- 1. This Revision is by the defendants-appellants in the court below and is directed against an order of that court returning the appeal for presentation to the proper court. 2. The suit was filed in the Chittur Sub Court on 1-2-1956. With the abolition of that court and the location of a Munsiffs Court at Chittoor, on and from 15-3-1957 by notification of the Kerala Government, the suit was proceeded with by the Chittoor Munsiff's Court and was later on 24-8-1957 decreed. By separate notification dated 12-3-1957 the Chittoor Munsiff's Court was made Subordinate to the Palghat District Court and so, the appeal from this judgment and decree in the case was on 10-10-1957 taken by the defendant to the Palghat District Court. Interlocutory orders would appear to have been passed in the appeal by the District Court, Palghat but on the appeal itself coming on for disposal towards the end of July 1958, the learned District Judge thought that the appeal lay properly before the Trichur District Court and therefore passed the order herein. 3. According to the court below the venue of the appeal should be deemed to have been determined as at the very date of the institution of the suit and along with it. And as the appeals from the decision of the Chittoor Sub Judge's Court, when it existed lay to the Trichur District Court the appeal here should also be to that court alone and none other. It is no doubt a well established proposition that the right of appeal is a vested right in the sense that it is preserved to the parties throughout the career, of the suit and cannot be deemed to have been taken away except by express words in or the necessary intendment of any later statutory enactment. But this has nothing to do with the exact Court which should hear the appeal, whether from the point of view as to location or its personnel. The ruling in 1957 K.L.T. 980 relied on by the Court below was not concerned with any question of forum as here. It only reiterated the main proposition. The ruling in 1956 K.L.T. 584 also relied on by the lower court did not really support its decision Indeed the principle of that ruling would on the other hand support, the choice made by appellant before the Court below. 4. It only reiterated the main proposition. The ruling in 1956 K.L.T. 584 also relied on by the lower court did not really support its decision Indeed the principle of that ruling would on the other hand support, the choice made by appellant before the Court below. 4. There was in any event the clear implication arising under the Notification of the 12th March 1957 that the Court below was constituted the superior Court so far as the Chittoor Munsiff's Court, was concerned. If so any decision of the Chittoor Munsiff's, Court, as here, was subject only to the appellate jurisdiction of the court below, and there was consequently no doubt that the appeal had been properly taken before the court below. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not question this reasoning on this conclusion. 5. It remains only to say that the short shrift given by the learned judge below to the ruling of learned Single Judge of this Court in C. R. P. 357 of 1957 albeit unreported, was rather uncalled for. A better attempt to understand it should have been made. 6. I therefore set aside the order of the Court below and direct that the appeal concerned be taken back on its file for disposal in due course of law and in the light of the above observations. No costs however. Allowed.