PARIS — The highest appeals court in France will decide today whether to ban a contemporary sequel to Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables” for betraying the spirit of the 19th-century classic.

The verdict could end years of wrangling between the author’s great-great-grandson, Pierre Hugo, and Francois Ceresa, whose two-volume sequel was derided as an insipid “Les Mis II” by the Hugo family.

“I hope to set a legal precedent for all descendants of celebrities, be they writers, artists, or musicians, to protect the spirit of their forebears,” Mr. Hugo, 59, a writer and goldsmith, told the Daily Telegraph.

Intellectual property rights lawyers said the ruling could set a precedent in cases pitting literary works considered to be in the public domain 70 years after their author’s death against an author’s “moral rights” — which are by law timeless and guarded by his descendants.

The court battle began in 2001, after the release of Mr. Ceresa’s book, “Cosette, or the Time of Illusions,” which Mr. Hugo claimed was a mere money-making operation that violated the “respect of the integrity” of Victor Hugo’s 1862 masterpiece.

Lawyers for Mr. Ceresa argued that to ban his novel would violate freedom of expression and deter artists from turning to great works for inspiration.

Literary lawyers worry that they will be swamped with real or fake descendants of celebrated authors seeking compensation.

“Les Miserables” has been adapted in books and plays and inspired the West End musical of the same name, which, Mr. Hugo said, his great-great-grandfather would have enjoyed thoroughly.

“I am not against ‘adaptations.’ I have seen 10 of the 47 film versions, and they all respect the novel. The latest hit musical in Paris based on ‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’ is fine. But I cannot accept a novel being sold as if it were a ‘true’ sequel purely for commercial gain.”

Mr. Hugo initially sought $8.8 million in damages from the publisher, Plon, saying he would donate the money to charity. The judges threw out the case because he had not proved that he was a relation of the French literary great and had no claim on the author’s rights. They also quoted Victor Hugo, who, at a literary conference in 1878, said, “The writer as a writer has but one heir: the public domain.”

But in 2004, an appeals court overturned that verdict by proving the direct line between Victor and Pierre Hugo and ruling that an author’s rights were “transmissible to their heirs.”

The judges also agreed “the writer would not have accepted that a third party write a sequel to ‘Les Miserables,'” which it described as a “veritable monument of world literature.”

The editor of the new work was ordered to pay the symbolic sum of $2, but he appealed. The book and a second installment, “Marius, or the Fugitive” were allowed to be published, but despite the printing of 250,000, sales were disappointing.

If the Hugo family wins the case, the book will be pulled from stores and the editor ordered to pay legal fees.

“This is not about money, it’s symbolic,” said Mr. Hugo, who pledged to continue his court battle if he loses.