Madras High Court
Sri Raja Mulraju Lakshmi Venkayamma Rao ... vs Sri Raja Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadur ... on 22 March, 1915
Equivalent citations: 30IND. CAS.372, AIR 1916 MADRAS 1222(2)
ORDER
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."
4. The decision in this case does nto (in the language of a recent decision) involve any legal question "of general importance," does nto affect any large body of persons and does not "threaten the religious or civil rights of any class of the community."
5. Assuming that in the judgment of this Court, some documents have been misconstrued, the conclusions on the facts are not based ont hose documents alone or even mainly.
6. The principle underlying their Lordships' decision in Ravi Veeraraghavulu v. Bomma Devara Venkata 25 Ind. Cas. 305 : 16 M.L.T. 262 : (1914) M.W.N. 695 : 1 L.W. 779 : 27 M.L.J. 451 : 20 C.L.J. 375 : 37 M. 443 : 19 C.W.N. 97 : 16 Bom. L.R. 853 seems to me to imply that such misconstruction of a portion of the evidence relating to particular facts cannot be treated as a "substantial question of law.
7. We would therefore, refuse the certificate applied for with one set of costs.