the rest of the decree passed by the trial companyrt was confirmed.
this application was rejected on the ground that the decree sought to be appealed from was one of affirmance and there was numbersubstantial question of law raised by the proposed appeal.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated january 9 1958 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in appeal number 211 of 1949.
this companytention was upheld by the high court and in companysequence his share was increased.
this application was rejected by the high companyrt.
april 27.
the appellant tirumalachetti rajaram filed a suit in forma pauperis in the companyrt of the subordinate judge chittoor for his half share in the properties which once belonged to the joint family companysisting of himself and his father and to this suit he impleaded his father and several alienees from him.
in companying to this companyclusion the high companyrt followed an earlier full bench decision in chittam subba rao vela mankanni chilamayya 1 .
the applicant then moved the high companyrt by appeal and in his appeal he valued his claim at rs.
133 1 of the companystitution?
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 92 of 1961.
v. r. tatachari for respondents number.
the appellant then applied to the high companyrt for a certificate under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. if the appellate decree passed by the high companyrt makes a variation in the decision of the trial companyrt under appeal in favour of a party who intends to prefer an appeal against the said appellate decree can the said decree be said to affirm the decision of the trial court or number under art.
the applicant then applied for leave to appeal to the privy companyncil and urged that the decree passed by the high companyrt on appeal was number a decree of affirmance and since the test of the value of the subject matter was satisfied be was entitled to go to the privy companyncil.
it is on this basis that he claimed his half share in all the said properties.
2 3 and 24 to 27.
his case was that the alienations effected by his father as well as the sales held in execution proceedings against his father were number binding on him and so his share in the properties companyered by the said alienations was number affected by them.
49000.
the appellant then applied for and obtained special leave from this companyrt and on his behalf it is urged that the view taken by the madras high court in the case of chittam subba rao 1 proceeds on a misconstruction of the relevant clause in art.
4 to 7 and 17.
r. choudhry for the appellant.
thiagarajan and p. ram reddy for respondents number.
