- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) It is unfortunate that in a second appeal the High Court has interfered with the final decree in a litigation started almost half-a- century ago. After setting aside the final decree the High Court has sent back the case to the trial Court for passing fresh final decree. In order to equip the High Court with the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure code, the learned single Judge had formulated the following questions :- (1) Whether the courts below were justified in allowing partition of the property overlooking the partitions held in 1956 and 1974; (2) Whether it was proper and legal for the courts below in ordering division causing serious inconvenience and hardship to the majority share holders and in a manner by which the intrinsic value of the palace which is the subject matter of division is destroyed; (3) Whether the courts below were right in overlooking all the objections raised by defendants 2 and 3 about the inconvenience in the allotment suggested by the Commissioner and whether the final decree now passed is legally sustainable.
(3.) By no stretch of Imagination can those questions be termed as substantial questions of law. We are not inclined to term them even as questions of law. They are essentially factual questions. We are of the view that the High court had gone wrong in interfering with the final decree merely on the ground that the High court felt the view that some alteration could have been made in the allotment of the shares in the final decree. This is not the ground on which jurisdiction can justifiably be exercised in a second appeal.;