JUDGMENT

1. These are two applications for leave to appeal to his Majesty in Council against the decrees passed by this Bench in two second appeals arising out of two suits, which were dismissed on appeal by this Bench. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in one case was Rs. 4000 and in another case was Rs. 1000. Leave is sought on two grounds. It is urged that the plaintiff-applicant is entitled as of right to a certificate under Section 110, Civil P.C., inasmuch as "the decree or final order involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value." In any case, it is urged that the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council within the meaning of Section 109(c), Civil P.C. Reliance is placed in support of the first argument on Nadir Hussain v. Municiapal Board, Agra, AIR1937All169 and Subramania Ayyar v. Sellammai, A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 985

2. We are of opinion that neither of these cases helps the plaintiff-applicant. The facts in the first case were entirely different. There the plaintiff sued to enforce a charge and claimed a decree for sale with the option to sell any part or whole of the mortgaged property. The amount claimed by him and decreed to him was less than Rs. 10,000 but the total value of the mortgaged property which he was entitled to sell was Rs. 10,000 or upwards. Under these circumstances it was held that the decree did involve, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 under Section 110, Civil P.C. The present case, however, does not fall within the purview of the principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the above case. In the present case the plaintiff-applicant filed suits for possession of certain shops and houses in Bazar Lalganj, which is a part of his taluqdari village, on the ground that under a custom the riyayas and shopkeepers living in bazar Lalganj had no right to sell shops and houses without his permission and the sales made by the occupiers of those shops and houses amounted to an abandonment and gave no rights to the vendees, who were consequently liable to ejectment by the plaintiff. The sale deeds which were challenged were for Rs. 4000 and Rs. 1000. The value of the subject-matter of the two suits affected by our decision did not exceed Rs. 5000 nor does our decision directly or indirectly involve any claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 as required by Section 110, Civil P.C. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that bazar Lalganj is a big bazar, that similar cases may arise in the future and the landlord's title may be affected thereby. These questions when they arise will, according to the contention of learned Counsel, involve questions to property of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. An effective answer to this contention may be found in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Hanuman Prasad v. Bhagwati Prasad, 24 All. 236 where in interpreting Section 110, Civil P.C., the learned Judges observed that

when it is laid down that the decree must involve, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of ten thousand rupees in value or upwards, the reference is to suits in existence and not to suits, if we may so term it, in gremio futuri.

3. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in, 52 I.A. 207 where it was claimed that the setting aside of an award would result in the appellants being able to proceed with a suit for the recovery of damages in excess of Rs. 10,000 observed:

Their Lordships think that this is not really consequential on the present decree and too remote to be entitled to the description of being property indirectly involved in the issue of this suit.

4. After quoting this passage Sir Dinshah Mulla in his commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure (1941 Edition) at p. 898, thus summarises the principle:

It follows that the indirect relation must not be too remote; and so it has been