VASTAD MUSHKIR SAIB Vs. KARNAM CHOWDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree with the decision in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu (1908) I.L.R. 32 M. 318 to this extent that the same Appellate Court cannot pronounce (except when it is moved by an application for review) a different opinion on a relevant question of law from that which it held in a previous stage of the same case and on which earlier opinion, it based its decision remanding the suit to the lower court.

(2.) The other dictum laid down in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu (1908) I.L.R. 32 M. 318 namely, that the High Court sitting on further appeal from the second decision of the remanding Court could not consider the correctness of that opinion when it comes before it in the same case because the remand order itself had not been set aside by appeal or otherwise, has been doubted in Seshu Gurukkal v. Somasundara MudaVar (1909) 7 M.L.T. 93 but it is unnecessary to consider that other dictum for the decision of this second appeal.

(3.) If the decision of this Court on the former occasion on the question of limitation is binding on us now (as I hold it is on the strength of Subba Lakshmamma v. Venkatarayudu (1908) I.L.R. 32 Mad 318 this second appeal fails, there being no other arguable point in it.