GOWKANAPALLE THIPPA REDDY Vs. BALARANI REDDIGARI SOMA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 25 (a) of the Madras Act IV of 1938 as against the order of the District Judge of Cuddappah in O. P. . R. SOMA RBPDI (Umamaheswaram J.) A. I. R.

(2.) SINCE the filing of the appeal, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Suryanarayana v. Venkataramana Rao, : ILR (1953) Mad 295: (AIR 1953 Mad 458) (A), had to consider this question. The learned Judges held that, by the Explanation the Legislature did not alter the law as laid down by Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri JJ" in Venkayamma v. Rarnakotayya, ( : 1941 1 Mad LJ 479: AIR 1941 Mad 479) (B), and Vemireddy Ranga -reddi v. Venkatareddi, : 1942 2 Mad LJ 592: (AIR 1943 Mad 5) (C). At page 302 (of ILR Mad): (at P. 401 of AIR Mad), they observed as follows:

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the Respondent sought to distinguish the Pull Bench decision on the ground that the present case is only one of renewal and not a settlement of accounts. On principle, there is no distinction between the two classes of cases. A renewal may involve a settlement of accounts. The intermediate payments made will have to be deducted and the actual amount due ascertained.