133 1 of the Constitution ?
The learned Chief Justice also added that whilst the decree of the High Court modified in the petitioners favour the original decree, as regards the subject matter of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council it most certainly affirmed the decree of the first companyrt.
The defendants then applied to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
His case was that the alienations effected by him 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.
In that case the plaintiff who claimed to have been adopted by the senior widow of Shanker Rao sued the junior widow of Shanker Rao defendant 1 as well as the person who claimed to have been adopted by her defendant 2 for possession of half the property of Shanker Rao.
It, however, found that the plaintiff was bound to provide maintenance for defendant 1 at the rate of Rs.
It is on this basis that he claimed his half share in all the said properties.
Both the defendants denied the plaintiffs adoption and set up the adoption of defendant 2.
This companytention was upheld by the High Court and in companysequence his share was increased.
The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate under Art.
This judgment was pronounced in 1924.
It was this decision which was challenged before the Privy Council.
In companying to this companyclusion the High Court followed an earlier Full Bench decision in Chittam Subba Rao v. Vela Mankanni Chilamayya I.L.R. 1953 Mad.
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.
Upon appeal by the defendants to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the trial companyrts decree was modified by increasing the maintenance from Rs.
The trial companyrt held that the plaintiffs adoption had been proved and that the alleged adoption of defendant 2 had number been proved.
The appellant Tirumalachetti Rajaram filed a suit in forma pauperis in the Court 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.
That is the short question which arises for our decision in the present appeal.
The same point was raised before the Privy Council in Annapurnabai v. Ruprao 1924 L.R. 51 I.A. 319.
The rest of the decree passed by the trial companyrt was companyfirmed.
800 per annum.
This judgment was pronounced in 1904 and the companystruction which it put on the relevant clause of s. 596 is in companyformity with the views for which the respondents companytend in the present appeal.
800 to Rs.
Gajendragadkar, J. If the appellate decree passed by the High Court makes a variation in the decision of the trial Court 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 companyrt or number under Art.
