SRI RAJA MULRAJU LAKSHMI VENKAYAMMA RAO BAHADUR Vs. SRI RAJA VENKATADRI APPA RAO BAHADUR MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF KISTNA ON BEHALF OF THE COURT OF WARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is argued for the petitioner that as our decree did not affirm the decision of the lower Court, and as the value of the contemplated appeal to the Privy Council is over ten thousand rupees, leave ought to be granted under Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, and Order XLV, Rule 3(1).

(2.) We see no sufficient reason to dissent from the view of the Calcutta High Court See Rajah Sreenath Roy v. Secretary of State for India 8 C.W.N. 294 that where as regards the subject- matter of the proposed appeal, the High Court has affirmed the decree of the Court of first instance (though it made some modifications in that decree in the appellant s favour as regards another portion of the plaintiff s claim) leave to appeal to the Privy Council ought not to be granted unless the proposed appeal involved some substantial question of law (last paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code).

(3.) There seems to be no "substantial question" of law involved in the proposed appeal. It is, of course, possible by the exependiture of much engenuity to formulate in the appeal grounds some questions of law as arising on the facts or on the reasons given for the decisions on certain facts, but the questions so formulated in this case are not "sustainable" questions even taken at their highest. See Gafur Khan v. Secretary of state 23 Ind. Cas 532 : 36 A. 325 : 12 A.L.J. 451 as to a "substantial question of law having to be involved."