ORDER : 1. This is an application by one Raghunathsingh s/o Natha for leave to appeal under S. 23, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act. 2. In this case one Natha made a partition of joint family estate keeping one share to himself, one to his son Raghunathsingh and one to his son Gangarajn father of the plaintiff Bherusingh. Natha died in about 1916/17 after making the partition. Natha's share consisting of the land in dispute devolved on his sons Raghunathsingh and Gangaram. However, the land and the property which fell to the share of Natha was allowed by Raghunathsingh and Gangaram to remain with Natha's widow Gendibai for maintenance till 1934-35 when Gendibai died. 3. When the plaintiff's father Gangaram died, plaintiff was a minor aged 2/3 years and was taken away by his maternal uncle. Plaintiff's case is that during his absence and after the death of his father Raghunathsingh fraudulently took steps to have the name of Chandrasingh mutated on the land in dispute holding out Chandrasingh as being the son of Natha. After the death of Chandrasingh, Raghunathsingh fraudulently contrived to get the name of his minor son Karansingh mutated in place of deceased Chandrasingh, holding out that Karansingh was the son of Natha. Plaintiff's case is that when he returned in 1936 he lived jointly with his uncle Raghunathsingh till 1939. In 1939 Bherusingh was given 1/3 share of the land on the ground that was the share of his father Gangaram. Plaintiff says that he was ignorant of the mutation fraudulently contrived by Raghunathsingh and that he claims half the share in Natha's lands. 4. In appeal the important point to be considered was as to how the title to agricultural holdings is acquired and the second point was that assuming that a person is not in possession of agricultural holdings for more than 12 years and it is in possession of one who is not entitled under the law to hold the land, whether the bar of limitation can be pleaded. 5. 5. On the construction of the Holkar State Revenue Circular No. 13 of 1908, Clauses (3), (4) and (5), I held that it was not competent for the holder to make a bequest or gift and the devolution will be governed by ordinary law of inheritance and in this view of law it appeared to me clear that the plaintiff is entitled to half the share of agricultural holdings which had fallen to the share of Natha. 6. Mr. Sanghi's contention is that the Revenue Circular No. 13 of 1908 is not applicable in as much as there was no question of transfer in this case. 7. It appears to me that in this case there is a transfer of the land in favour of Chandrasingh by implied gift (See para 4 of the written statement of the defendant). Chandrasingh had no right to the land and it was given to him by the acquiescence of the other co-sharers and hence it does amount to transfer and in view of this, the provisions of Circular No. 13 of 1908 apply. 8. In my view this is not a fit case for grant of a certificate under Section 23 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act. 9. The test for determining whether a case is a fit one under S. 23 of the Act, is to see whether the point involved is one of great public or private importance or is of such a nature that the decision thereon might result in a precedent governing numerous cases or whether there are any other exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a certificate. This is certainly not a matter of public importance because it affects merely the parties of the case, and not a large body of persons or community. The mere existence of a substantial question of law is not sufficient. A question of private importance means private importance to both the parties to the litigation and not merely to one of them. These principles are clearly inunciated in the decision reported in - 'Kalyan Das v. Brij Keshore', AIR 1941 All 9 (A). It was there held that there are, at any rate, four cases in which leave to appeal under the Letters Patent should be given. These principles are clearly inunciated in the decision reported in - 'Kalyan Das v. Brij Keshore', AIR 1941 All 9 (A). It was there held that there are, at any rate, four cases in which leave to appeal under the Letters Patent should be given. First, in a case in which a question of general importance has arisen and in which it is manifestly in the public interest that a more authoritative decision should be given than is possible at the hands of a Single Judge. And to this head must be added a case in which the matter involved is of altogether unusual private importance, either by reason of the magnitude of the material issues involved or for some other reason. Secondly there are cases in which a question arises of very frequent occurrence. Such a case might arise where, on some new statute, a point arises which will govern the rights and liabilities of a large number of people. An authoritative decision in a case like that is necessary to serve as a precedent for future cases. And, thirdly, there are those cases in which the existing authorities by which the Court is to be guided are either obscure or conflicting. In such a case as that it is to the public interest that all doubts should be dissolved and for that reason it' is obviously proper to grant leave to appeal. Fourthly, a case in which the Judge himself feels, a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of his own decision and thinks that for that reason it is just to the parties that a further appeal should be allowed. Leave to appeal should not be granted too lightly. See also - 'Sadashiv Vishnu v. Sakharam Raghunath', AIR 1932 Bom 218 (B) and - 'Asrafi Mandar v. Karu Mander', AIR 1934 Pat 466 (C). 10. The construction of Revenue Circular No. 13 of 1908 (Holkar State), Clauses (3), (4) and (5), has been decided by a series of cases of this High Court and this case nearly follows those rulings. 11. I am clearly of opinion that in this case an implied transfer is there in favour of Chandrasingh and it is in contravention of the Circular referred to above. I, therefore see no reason to grant a certificate and dismiss the application with costs. 12. Pleader's fees to be taxed at Rs. 10/-. Application dismissed.