RAOJI BHIKAJI KONDKAR Vs. LAXMIBAI ANANT KONDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is art application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decree of this Court in First Appeal No. 130 of 1916 on the ground that the requirements of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code are satisfied.

(2.) In the suit as originally brought the plaintiff claimed one-half share in the family property and valued it at Es. 12,000. The defendant No. 1, his uncle, and defendant No. 2, his grand- mother, pleaded that he was entitled only to one-third share. A decree was passed in his favour to the extent of one-third share in the property. After the preliminary decree was passed the defendant No. 2 died and the plaintiff then made an application to have the decree amended by claiming a moiety in the one-third share of his grand-mother. The trial Court held that on her death that share became equally divisible between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to this Court which related to the one-sixth share which the plaintiff claimed after the death of defendant No. 2 over and above the one-third share already awarded to him, This Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff was entitled to divide equally with the defendant No. 1 the share which defendant No. 2 could have claimed in her life-time.

(3.) As the decree of the lower Court is confirmed by this Court, under Section 110 it is essential that the appeal must involve some substantial question of law. This condition, in my opinion, is satisfied in the present case. The appeal raises the question as to whether on the death of Yeshodabai the plaintiff became en-titled to a moiety of her share in the property or whether the defendant No. 1 was exclusively entitled to that share.