(1.) . These are respectively two petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the common judgment and separate decrees of this Court in Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 of 1953 and a third petition for the consolidation of these two petitions. They raise a question regarding the applicability of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 133of the Constitution of India. As there is a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, the matter has been referred to a Full Bench.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner, Kishori Devi, is the transferee of a money decree for a little over Rs. 10,000 passed against one Lakshminarayana Raju in Order Section No. 9 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. In execution of the decree, she attached a number of immoveable properties in December, 1950 as belonging to the judgment-debtor. The respondents filed two applications for releasing the respective properties mentioned in them from the attachment. They claimed to be the owners of the properties, basing their title on a settlement deed (Ex. A. 18) executed by the judgment-debtor in 1948. As these applications were dismissed, they brought two suits under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, Order Section Nos. 73 and 74 of 1951 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Srikakulam, praying that the respective claim orders be set aside and the attachment be raised.The petitioner was the 1st defendant in each of the two suits and the judgment-debtor, Lakshminarayana Raju, was the 2nd defendant. The trial judge, in a common judgment, held that as the judgment-debtor and his two sons were undivided, the respondents had title to only an undivided one-third share in the properties. He decreed both the suits in part, granting declaration of title in favour of the respondents on that basis and directing that the attachment over their undivided one-third share of the properties be raised. The respondents preferred appeals to this court. Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 of 1953, on the ground that they were entitled to the entire properties and not a mere one-third share in them and that the entire properties ought to be released from the attachment. The appeals were dealt with in a common judgment.This court agreed with the trial Judges conclusions that the respondents bad title only to an undivided one-third share but held that the entire properties must be released from attachment as the judgment-debtor had no interest in them and the respondents were in possession. The result was that both the suits were wholly decreed in favour of the respondents. The cross-objections filed by the petitioner In which she attacked the settlement deed as being nominal1 and void and contended that the claim orders were not liable to be set aside at all, were dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved because, according to her, both the suits ought to have been dismissed in toto. She therefore seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.3. As the judgment of this court on the appeals is not one of affirmance and as in our view the case cannot be considered to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 133(1) of the Constitution the only question for determination is whether the requirements as to value are satisfied. The relevant portion of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 133(1) of the Constitution are: