Judgement Petition for special leave to appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces dated September 26, 1923. Petitioner No. 1 was the junior widow of Shanker Rao Patel, who died childless in February, 1908, leaving property of over Rs. 80,000 in value. Petitioner No. 2 was alleged to have been adopted in June, 1908, by petitioner No. 1 with the consent of the senior widow. In 1919 the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Amraoti against the petitioners for possession of half the property of Shanker Rao Patel; he alleged that he had been adopted by the senior widow in 1912 ; he denied the alleged adoption of petitioner No. 2. The petitioners by their written statement denied the adoption alleged by the plaintiff, and with regard Law. Rep. 51 Ind. App. 319 ( 1923- 1924) Annapurnabai V. Ruprao 99 to the alleged adoption of defendant No. 2 relied on the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch I., arts. 118, 119. Further, petitioner No. 1 claimed to be entitled to Rs. 3000 per annum for maintenance out of the estate. The additional District Judge held that the plaintiffs adoption was proved, and that the alleged adoption of defendant No. 2 was not proved; and that the suit was not barred by limitation. He held further that the plaintiff was bound to provide maintenance for petitioner No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 800 per annum, which was to be a charge upon the estate. Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decree was modified by increasing the maintenance from Rs. 800 to Rs. 1200 per annum; in all other respects the decree was affirmed. The petitioners (defendants) applied to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for leave to appeal to the Privy Council; but the application was dismissed on the ground that the decree of the first Court had been affirmed except in respect of " a small change " in favour of one of the applicants, and that no question of law was involved. 1924. July 29. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Wattach for the petitioners. The petitioners had a right of appeal to the Privy Council under ss. 109, 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1924. July 29. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Wattach for the petitioners. The petitioners had a right of appeal to the Privy Council under ss. 109, 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The recognized practice of the Board is to apply for special leave, and not to appeal from the refusal of leave Rahimbhoy Habibhoy v. Turner. (( 1890) L. R. 18 I. A. 6.) The value of the subject matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 10,000, as also did the subject matter of the proposed appeal; even if the maintenance alone is regarded as in dispute, its value, having regard to the widows prospects of life, exceeded Rs. 10,000. The Appellate Court did not affirm the decree of the first Court but varied it; consequently it is not material under s. 110 whether any substantial question of law is involved. Having regard to the concurrent findings the petitioners desire to appeal only with regard to the amount of the maintenance. The respondent did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DUNEDIN. In the opinion of their Lordships the contention of the petitioners counsel as to the effect of s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure is correct, and the petitioners had a right of appeal. They should have special leave to appeal, but it should be limited to the question as to the maintenance allowance. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.