( 1 ) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment and decree of this Court dated 16-12-1953.

( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties relates to a claim by the respondent that he is entitled to a one-fourth share in two plots of land in the town of Ferozabad. On an issue being remitted by this Court the value of that one-fourth share was found by the learned Additional Civil Judge of agra to be Rs. 10,425/- and that figure is not now in dispute. The appellant contends however that the judgment and decree of this Court "involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting" the entire property the value of which is considerably in excess of Rs. 20,000. We do not think this contention is sound. In --- bai Shevantibai v. Janardhan Raghunath, AIR 1944 PC 65 (A), the Privy Council held that a question as to the title of the plaintiff to the share which he claimed in the joint property did not become a question respecting the whole of the joint family estate merely because if his title is established it would result in the joint family estate being partitioned. A fortiori a claim to a one-fourth share in certain property will not have that result if the establishment of the plaintiffs claim does not involve partition.

( 3 ) THE suit out of which this application for leave to appeal arises was instituted on 7-7-1949, that is before the commencement of the Constitution, but the decrees of the trial Court and of the lower appellate court as well as the decree, of this Court on second appeal were made after 26-1-1950, and the important question which arises is whether in these circumstances the appellant has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court notwithstanding the fact that the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute, although above Rs. 10,000, is less than Rs. 20,000.

( 4 ) I will consider later the argument founded on the right which the applicant undoubtedly acquired on the date upon which the plaint was filed of appeal to the Privy Council; I think it convenient to consider first the relevant provisions of the Constitution. They are Articles 133 and 135 and the relevant portions read as follows :

"133 (1) 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 the amount 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; "135. Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of Article 133 or Article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exereisable by the federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law. "

( 5 ) THE right of a party to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of a High Court, passed after the commencement of the Constitution is prima facie to be determined by Article 133; and where, as in the case now before us, the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is less than Rs. 20,000 and the requirements of Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Clause (1) of that Article (as is admittedly the case) are not fulfilled, a High Court has no power to give the requisite certificate and leave to appeal cannot be granted under that Article.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 135 however confers on the Supreme Court jurisdiction in respect, inter alia, of any civil matter to which the provisions of Article 133 do not apply, provided that jurisdiction and powers in relation