( 1 ) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicant is the widow of lal Durga Saran Singh. One Raja Earn Chandra Singh was the owner of an impartible Raj known as Rampur Raj. He died in the year 1883 leaving a widow, Rani Krishna Kuar, and a daughter, Munni Saheba. After his death his widow, Rani Krishna Kuar, succeeded to the Raj and continued to be in possession of it till her death in May, 1939. She died issueless and there was a dispute upon her death between the applicant, Rani Fateh Kuar, on the one hand and Raja durbijai Singh, opposite party, on the other in respect of the succession to the Rampur Raj.

( 2 ) A suit was filed in October, 1939, on the allegation that, upon the death of Raja Ram Chandra singh, Rani Krishna Kuar entered into possession of the estate as his heir, that there was a litigation between Rani Krishna Kuar and a brother of Raja Ram Chandra Singh and that after several contests a family settlement is said to have been arrived at by which it was agreed that rani Krishna Kuar should adopt Lal Durga Saran Singh, that she should continue in possession of the estate till her death and that the rights of Durga Saran Singh be deferred till after the death of the Rani.

( 3 ) THE applicant, Rani Pateh Kuar, was married to Lal Durga Saran Singh and became a widow soon after, Lal Durga Saran Singh having died issueless. The applicant claimed that she was entitled to the Rampur Raj because she was the widow of Lal Durga Saran Singh, the adopted son of Raja Ram Chandra Singh and Rani Krishna Kuar, and had a vested interest in the estate due to the family settlement. She also pleaded custom in support of her claim. Her suit was for a declaration that she was the owner of all the movable and immovable properties which appertained to Rampur estate and at the time of the suit were under the management of the Court of Wards. The suit was contested by Raja Durbijai Singh who claimed to be a reversioner of the late Raja Ram Chandra Singh and entitled to succeed. He denied the family settlement. He also set up a custom in support of his claim. He challenged the fact that Rani Krishna Kuar had a right to make any adoption.

( 4 ) THE first Court held that the applicants husband was the validly adopted son of Raja Ram chandra Singh and Rani Krishna Kuar but did not believe that there was any family settlement upon which reliance was placed by the applicant Rani Fateh Kuar, and that the deceased Rani krishna Kuar had no right to nominate a successor. The trial Court passed a decree in the following terms :

"the suit is dismissed except to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to get a maintenance from the defendant Rs. 3,000 a year. . . . . and will continue to live where she is living now. The defendant is the owner of the Rampur estate. "

( 5 ) AGAINST this decree Raja Durbijai Singh, opposite party, preferred a first appeal to this Court and the applicant filed a cross-objection. The first appeal and the cross-objections were heard by a Bench of this Court which affirmed the finding of the trial Court with regard to title but allowed the appeal in the following terms :

"the result is that we allow the defendants appeal and setting aside the order of the learned civil Judge granting a maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000 a year to the plaintiff dismiss her suit in its entirety. The cross-objections filed by the plaintiff are dismissed. "

( 6 ) AGAINST this decree of this Court the applicant has applied for leave to make an appeal to the supreme Court. Her contention is that this Court varied the decree of the first Court and, therefore, under the provisions of Article 133 of the Constitution she is entitled as of right to go to the Supreme Court in appeal. In support of this contention learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon two Full Bench cases of this Court, viz. , Nathu Lal v. Raghubir Singh, a. I. R. 1932 ALL. 65 (S. B.) and Jaggo Bai v. Harihar Prasad