The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'the decree' and 'the decision', emphasizing that a single decree may comprise several decisions, each relating to a distinct subject-matter.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council (the judgment to be appealed from is reported in H.R.E. Board, Madras v. Koteswara Rao (1937) 446 L.W. 587. All of them excepting one may be easily disposed of. The question raised in each case is whether the property was a gift to the God or was an archaka service inam. The point turned upon the effect of the inam proceedings and it was held in an affirming judgment, upon a construction of the various inam papers, that the gifts were intended for the deity.

2. That the property in each case is of the requisite value under Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code is not disputed. The High Courts decision being an affirming one, the only point that arises is, whether the proposed appeal involves some substantial question of law. The finding here was reached, as already stated, upon a construction of the inam papers and no question of law was raised:

Where the question to be decided is one of fact, it does not involve any issue of law merely because documents, which were not instruments of title-or otherwise the direct foundations of rights, but were really historical materials, have to be considered for the purpose of deciding the question." Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh (1929) 59 M.L.J. 53 : L.R. 57 IndAp 86 : I.L.R. 11 Lah. 199 (P.C.).

3. Following this decision, I must hold that the question whether the gift was to the God or not, does not in the circumstances involve any substantial point of law.

4. A subsidiary question was raised in the appeals whether the requirement of Section 70 of the Hindu Religious Endowments-Act was fulfilled by the notice being served upon the archaka on the ground that he was the de facto trustee. The answer given in the affirmative was based on the clear language of the section itself. We understand that this view has been; taken by at least three Benches of this Court, and this beings so, it is hardly proper to treat the appeal as involving a substantial question of law.

5. As regards the remaining petition which relates to C.M.A. No. 125 of 1934, different considerations apply. (The judgment on this part of the case is reported in H.R.E. Board, Madras v. Koteswara Rao (1937) 46 L.W. 587 already cited, at page 595.) The archakas claimed title to five plots bearing five distinct survey; numbers. As in the other cases, so here, the High Court agreeing with the lower Court held that under the grant the archakas possessed no beneficial interest. But as to what the grant comprised, the lower Court made a mistake due to inadvertance, and that mistake alone the High Court rectified. The result was that out of the five terns held by the lower Court to belong to the deity, the High Court excluded two of them, on the ground that the grant did not comprise them; to this extent the decree of the lower Court was varied.

6. The proposed appeal by the archakas relates to the three items as to which the High Courts decree has affirmed the lower Courts decision. It is contended that the decree passed by the lower Court is single and indivisible and that the decree of the High Court, which has not affirmed it in its entirety, cannot be regarded as an affirming decree. In a recent case heard by Cornish, J., and myself, a similar contention was raised which we refuted in a considered judgment. The point was elaborately discussed there and it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons, which led us to the conclusion, that the oneness of the decree does not preclude the question being considered, whether it comprises one decision or several decisions. Venkitaswami Chettiar v. Sekkutti Pillai (1936)71MLJ580 . The matter was discussed from the point of view, first of the case comprising several subject-matters and secondly of there being claims against several defendants. I put in the judgment delivered by me, several typical cases, in order to show the anomaly that would result, should the contention based on the singleness of the