AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
William Ayling, J.—I am by no means clear that the decree of this Court in so far as petitioner wishes to appeal from it, should not be
regarded as on confirming the decree of the Agent Vide Raja Sree Nath Roy v. Secretary of State 8 C.W.N. 294, and there appears to be no
substantial question of law involved in this appeal. As however, my learned brother is: clearly of opinion that the appeal lies, and as ah appeal has
already been admitted by the opposite party against other portions of the decree I do not feel called upon to differ. I, therefore, agree, the more so
as I think in dealing with an application for leave to appeal, the petitioner should have the benefit of any doubt in the order granting certificate.
Phillips, J.
Objection is taken to this application for permission to appeal to the Privy Council on the ground that although the subject-matter of the appeal
is Rs. 10,000 in value, the decree of this Court is an affirming decree in so far as the rate of the maintenance claimed is concerned, the: addition of
Rs. 5,000 for residence being treated merely as an addition to the lower Court''s decree, vide Raja Sree Nath Roy v. Secretary of State 8
C.W.N. 294. Petitioner claimed Rs. 15,000 for a residence, but this claim was entirely disallowed by the Agent to the Governor. In appeal this
claim was allowed, but the value of the claim was fixed at Rs. 5,000 only. So far as this claim is concerned, I do not, think that the decree of this
Court can be said to affirm the decree of the Agent, for in that Court that claim was entirely negatived, but in this Court it was allowed partially.
Even in respect of this claim the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is Rs. 10,000 and, therefore, I would grant permission to appeal, the
more so as an appeal has already been allowed to be filed by the opposing party.