ORDER 1. The suit out of which the appeal arose was to recover Rs. 8-13-2. The claim for this amount is no doubt a recurring claim as the Government claim to levy water-cess annually. Capitalising at twenty times the amount, the value of the suit is less than Rs. 180. The suit does not involve property or claim of the value of Rs. 10,000 directly. It is then argued that it involves a like claim indirectly, simply because similar questions may arise in this Presidency in other estates or other districts or in connection with other rivers. We do not think that this is the proper interpretation of the word "indirectly." If the decision of an issue in this case makes the decision of the same issue in other cases res judicala or some such similar connection can be shown, the value of other disputed matters may be taken into consideration. This is the view taken by one of us and Venkatasubba Rao, J., in C.M.P. No. 793 of 1929 (see Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Sundaraswamier (1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 211 : I.L.R. 45 M. 475 at 480 : 43 M.L.J. 323 (P.C.)). It is suggested that 240 acres of the suit zemindari may be possibly irrigated hereafter. This is a bare assertion by the suits clerk in the Collectors Office and we do not know his means of knowledge. His affidavit does not disclose how he knew anything of the region with which the suit is connected. The counter-affidavit states that only 170 acres are liable to irrigation hereafter. This is getting into a region of conjectures and bare possibilities and we do not think it is justified by the use of the word "indirectly." 2. It is next contended that it is a matter of general importance. After the decisions of the Privy Council in Prasad Row v. The Secretary of State for India (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. 166 : I.L.R. 40 M. 886 : 33 M.L.J. 144 (P.C.) and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Maharajah of Bobbili (1919) L.R. 46 I.A. 302 : I.L.R. 43 M. 529 : 37 M.L.J. 724 (P.C.) we think that the matter is finally settled and that there is no question to be agitated as one of public importance. 3. The petition is dismissed with costs.