SRI RAJAH RAVU SRI KRISHNAYYA RAO ALIAS SRI RAJAH RAVU VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATI KRISHNA SURYA RAO BAHADUR GARU Vs. RAJAH SAHEB MEHARBAN-I-DOSTAN SRI RAJAH RAVU VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATI SURYA RAO BAHADUR GARU, MAHARAJA OF PITTAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected appeals arising out of a Suit brought by two plaintiffs against the Maharaja of Pittapuram (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for an account and payment of the rents and profits and other sums collected by him from a Zamindari estate known as Gollaprolu and situate in the Godavari District, during a period of about 11 years and "8 months from the 12 January, 1924 up to the 7 September, 3935. The plaintiffs estimated the amount due at Rs. 7,38,000 which they seek to recover with interest at nine per cent. per annum from the respective dates of collection. The main defence, was one of limitation in regard to sums received more than three years prior to the suit. The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coeanada which tried the suit overruled the plea and passed a preliminary decree, dated 4 March, 1937, directing the defendant to render an account of all sums received by him during the whole period but disallowing the claim for interest. The accounts were taken in due course and a final decree was passed on the 25 March, 1938. Appeal No. 252 of 1937, has been brought by the defendant against the preliminary decree challenging the decision on the question of limitation and Appeal No. 246 of 1937, is a cross-appeal by the plaintiffs raising the question of interest and certain other minor objections in regard to the same decree. Appeals Nos. 330, 364 and 365 of. 1938, are appeals preferred against the final decree by the defendant, the first and second plaintiffs, respectively.

(2.) The suit is an offshoot of an earlier litigation which after a protracted and somewhat, chequered career culminated in His Majesty's Order in Council, dated the 15 July, 1935, in P.C.A. No. 44 of 1930, adjudging in effect that the present first plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of the said Gollaprolu estate. It is unnecessary for the purposes of these appeals to state the facts relating to that litigation except in brief outline. The present defendant brought that suit in 1915 for a declaration that the first plaintiff's adoption by Rani Ramayamma, the Zamindarini of Gollaprolu (hereinafter called the Rani), was invalid and he (the defendant) was the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to the estate on her death. The District Court, Rajahmundry, after an elaborate trial decreed the suit in October, 1920, declaring the adoption to be invalid. While an appeal against that decree preferred by the present first plaintiff was pending, the Rani died on the 24 October, 1923. Thereupon the defendant herein filed an application before the Collector of Godavari for the registry of the estate in his name as the proprietor thereof after the death of the Rani, the adoption having been held to be invalid by a Court of law. He also filed an application before that officer under Section 3, C1. (5) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) for recognising him as the landholder of the estate for the purposes of that Act. The present first plaintiff filed a counter- petition claiming that the estate should be registered in his name on the allegations that the District Court's decision declaring his adoption invalid could not be regarded as final, as he had appealed therefrom, and that, since the date of his adoption,. he had been in possession of the estate jointly with the Rani till her death and thereafter jointly with the second plaintiff, to whom the Rani had devised by her will her half share in the estate which was given to her absolutely under an ante-adoption agreement. Two other persons who also set up rival claims to the estate made a similar application for recognition as landholders. These disputes were settled by the Collector by an order, dated the 12 January, 1924, wherein he recognised the defendant as the landholder for the purposes of the Act, and the defendant accordingly entered upon possession of the estate .and began to collect the rents and profits thereof. It may be mentioned here that an attempt was made in the Court below to show that the defendant had taken possession of the estate after the Rani's death by getting the tenants to attorn to him even before the Collector's order, but the learned Subordinate Judge found against him on the point and that finding has not been questioned before us.

(3.) The appeal preferred by the first plaintiff against the decree of the District Court, Rajahmundry, declaring his adoption to be invalid was in due course heard by a Division Bench of this Court in October, 1926, and as the Judges differed, an appeal was filed under the Letters Patent which was heard and disposed of by a Bench of three Judges in March, 1928, where again there was a difference of opinion, the majority finding against the validity of the adoption and confirming the decree of the Court below. The first plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal to His Majesty in Council which was heard in 1933 on the question whether certain evidence relating to the sonship of the defendant which had been excluded as inadmissible in the Courts here was admissible or not. Their Lordships held that it was admissible and had been wrongly excluded, and remitted the case for a fresh finding on the question after taking that evidence also into consideration. In April, 1934, this Court submitted its finding, on a consideration of the whole evidence, that the defendant was an aurasa son of his father, and their Lordships finally disposed of the appeal in June, 1935, holding that the first plaintiff's adoption by the Eani was valid and dismissing the defendant's suit. The formal Order in Council was issued, as already stated, in July, 1935. On application subsequently made by the plaintiffs, the Collector of Godavari cancelled the order whereby he recognised the defendant as the landholder, and directed the registry of the estate in the names of the plaintiffs recognising them as the landholders thereof. This was on the 7 September, 1935. The plaintiffs having thus obtained possession of the estate brought the suit now under appeal in October, 1935, for recovery of the rents and profits received by the defendant during the period of his possession and management of the estate in pursuance of the Collector's order, dated the 12th January, 1924.