A decree of affirmance does not involve a substantial question of law and cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court unless the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is Rs. 20,000/- or upwards.

1. This is an application under Section 110, Code of Civil Procedure, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree in 'First Appeal No. 22 of 1915', decided on 22-1-1951.

2. The applicants were the Defendants-Appellants against whom a decree for partition and separate possession of all the property in suit was passed. The points for decision in the appeal were:

(i) Whether there was a partition of the joint family in the year 1909 putting an end to the interest of the Plaintiff in the properties in dispute?

(ii) Whether the properties in dispute are the joint family properties of the parties or are they self-acquisitions of the Defendants?

(iii) What is the extent of the gold to which the Plaintiff is entitled?

The decision of the trial Court was affirmed on the first two points and the contention of the Defendants-Appellants on the third point was wholly accepted. No grievance on this score is now left and none is raised in the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicants thus want to appeal only against the affirming part of the decree of this Court.

3. According to the applicants the value of the subject-matter of appeal to the Supreme Court is Rs. 38,900/- while according to the non-applicant it is only Rs. 10,350/-. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant contends that the applicants cannot invoke Section 109(a), Code of Civil Procedure unless the value is Rs. 20,000/- or upwards as the decree of this Court was passed after the Constitution came into force. The applicants rely on - Nandlal v. Hiralalsao, 1950 AIR(Nag) 222, in support of their contention that the value must be Rs. 10,000/- or upwards. It is not necessary to send the case to the trial Court to determine the value or to examine the contentions as the application must fail on another point.

4. This case does not involve any substantial question of law. The two points decided against the applicants are pure questions of fact and the law applicable is well settled and does not admit of any controversy. The learned Counsel however, relied on - Dinkarrao v. Rattansey,1919 AIR(Nag) 300. There the question was about construction of a deed of compromise which formed the root of title. The learned Judges had not only to construe the terms of the document which was missing but had also to infer what those terms were from a consideration of the other documents and statements on record. That undoubtedly was a substantial question of law. Another substantial question tor consideration was whether 'res judicata' & estoppel which the High Court had app.ied could be applied when neither had been pleaded. There are no such considerations in this case. The case is thus distinguishable.

5. For the purposes of this order it is assumed that the requirement of valuation is satisfied. As the decree of this Court affirms the decree of the trial Court so far as the subject-matter of the appeal to the Supreme Court is concerned the non-Applicant contends that the proposed appeal must involve some substantial question of law. According to the applicants the decree of this Court is not a decree of affirmance as it has modified the decree of the trial Court; consequently this condition is not necessary in this case.

6. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the decree of this Court is a decree of affirmance. There is No. doubt that the decree of this Court deciding the first two points, which alone the applicants want to challenge in the Supreme Court is the decree affirming the decision of the trial Court. No leave can, therefore, be granted as the proposed appeal does not involve a substantial question of law. - Brahma Nand v. Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha, 1944 AIR(Lah) 329, followed in Wahid-ud-din v. Makhan Lal, 1944 AIR(Lah) 458, - Lakshmanan v. Thangam, 1947 AIR(Mad) 227, & - Govind Dhondo v. Vishnu Keshav, 1949 AIR(Bom) 164. The question would have been otherwise if the applicants had not succeeded wholly on the third point and desire