KARNATI SATYANARAYANA Vs. GUMMADI SUBBAIAH AND SIX OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in the second appeal is whether the learned appellate Judge is right in holding that the parties had no right to appeal by reason of the special agreement embodied in the joint memo. filed before the District Munsif.

(2.) Mr. N. Rajeswararao, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the decision in Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Ramaswamiah Pillai (1922) 44 M.L.J. 258 : I.L.R. 47 Mad. 39 , and contended that there was nothing in the agreement to show an intention on the part of the parties to give up the right of appeal. In that case the terms of the agreement signed by the plaintiff and two of the defendants were contained in an affidavit which ran as follows:

(3.) The learned Judges held that the agreement in that case did amount to a special agreement that the Court should act extra cursum curiae. Schwabe, C.J., and Wallace, J., who constituted the Division Bench which disposed of the case, expressed their dissent from two Bench Decisions of the Madras High Court in Nidamarthi Kukkanti v. Thammana Ramayya (1902) I.L.R. 26 Mad. 76 and Chengalaroya Chetti v. Raghava Ramanuja Dass (1918) 37 M.L.J. 100 . There is a later decision of the Madras High Court in Venkata Somayajulu Garu v. Adusumilli Venkanna (1934) 66 M.L.J. 622 , where the agreement relied upon was in the following terms: