Judgment Modi, J.-This is an application by the unsuccessful plaintiffs Arnarslngh and Kararnsingh for leave to appeal to the Suprerne Court under Article 133 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgrnent and decree of a Bench of this Court dated 13-7-1955, reversing the judgrnent and decree of the District Judge. Ganganagar, by which he had decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

2. The dispute between the parties in substance and effect relates to the right to succeed to the estate of the deceased Dayalsingh, nephew (being brother’s son) of the petitioners, and the husband of oppo site party No. 1 Mst. Karnail Kaur. The plaintiffs’ case was that Mst. Karnail Kaur was not at all pregnant at the time of her husband’s death on the 20th February, 1947, and, therefore, the alleged after-born son Jagrupsingh opposite party No. 2 was an impostor, not being the child of Dayalsingh. There was a further allegation that Mst. Karnail Kaur had contracted a second rnarriage with Labhsingh, one of the sons of the plaintiff Arnarsingh. The plaintiffs’ suit was instituted directly to obtain a declaration to the effect above-rnentioned. They valued their suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000/-and paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 20/-only. The suit was resisted by Mst. Karnail Kaur on the grounds that she was in fact pregnant at the time of her husband Dayal Singh’s death and “that Jagrupsingh was her posthurnous child and that the version of the plaintiffs that she had entered into a second rnarriage with Labhsingh son of the plaintiff Arnarsingh was entirely false and without any foundation. The trial Court found in favour of the defendants on the question of re-rnarriage but against them so far as the question of Mst. Karnail Kaur’s pregnancy at the time of her husband’s death was concerned, and in that view decreed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal by the defendants, a Bench of this Court reversed the trial Court’s finding on the question of Mt. Karnail Kaur’s pregnancy at the time of her husband’s death and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs have filed this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the aforesaid decision.

3. The application was argued before us mainly on the ground that it was covered by Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution, that the judgment of this Court was one of variance with that of the Court below and that it would affect the plaintiffs’ claim or right respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000/-. We may point out that the application for leave to appeal appears to us to have been drawn up somewhat vaguely so as also to bring it within Clause (1) (a) of Article 133, but we do not propose to deal with it under that clause as the argument addressed to us was concentrated on Clause (1) (b) of that article. The relevant portion of Article 133 is in these terms:-“An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies-

(a) that theamount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than twenty-thousand rupees or such other sum as may be specified in

that behalf by Parliament by law; or

.(b) that the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value; or

.(c) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court; and where the judgment, decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the Court immediately below in any case other than a case refer red to in Sub-clause (c), if the High Court further certifies that the appeal involves some substantial question of law.”

4. The question for determination before us is whether the judgment or decree of this Court involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value (i.e., twenty-th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document