1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of a Bench of this Court pissed on appeal on the 9th November 1926.
2. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was over Rs. 10,000 and is stated that the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty is the same. The decree of this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below, but it is claimed that this notwithstanding, the case fulfills the requirements of Section 110, Civil P. C, because the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Alternatively it is prayed, with reference to the language of Order 45, Rule 3(1) that a certificate may be given that the case is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
3. The substantial question of law put forward by the petitioner in support of his claim that the case satisfies the requirements Section 110, is admittedly not a question of general importance but relying upon a recent judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council delivered on the 17th February 1927. Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh A.I..R.1927 P.C. 110, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that it is not necessary for him to make out that the question of law which he seeks to raise and have decided is one of general importance. It is sufficient, he says, to disclose a substantial question of law arising between the parties to the proposed appeal in order to entitle him to a certificate that the case fulfills the conditions of Section 110.
4. On behalf of the proposed respondents it has been urged that ever since the year 1901, when their Lordships decided the case of Moti Chand v. Ganga Prasad Singh [1902.] 24 All. 174 it has been the practice of this Court to require not only that a proposed appeal from a decree affirming the decree of the Court below should involve a substantial question of law but also that the question of law so involved should, to quote the words of Lord Davey in Moti Chand's case [1902.] 24 All. 174 be a substantial question of law of general interest. This rule has been applied to all proposed appeals from concurrent judgments irrespective of the amount at stake in the appeal.
5. A case may soon arise in which the position must be reviewed but it is not necessary to discuss the matter in the present instance.
6. The question between the parties in the case now under consideration was whether two agreements executed in the years 1864: and 1866 respectively by two Hindu widows were binding upon the estate and upon the reversioner, who was 1,he plaintiff in the suit. The Subordinate Judge found that both agreements had been made for the benefit of the estate, that they provided for arrangements which might prudently and profitably be made in the course of good management and that they, therefore, were binding upon plaintiff. This Court in appeal agreed with these findings and consequently no question of law arises. The case has been decided upon a question of fact.
7. We are of opinion, therefore, that the petitioner has failed to show that he has a case fit to be certified under Section 110, Civil P.C. and we are further of opinion that we should not be justified in declaring that the case was otherwise fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
8. We dismiss the petition with costs.