GANNABATHULA VENKAMMA Vs. GANNABATHULA RANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think that the decree of the Privy Council reversing the decree of the High Court as to the adoption is a ground for review of the judgment passed prior to the decision of the Privy Council, on the strength of the judgment of the High Court. In Kotagiri Venkatasubbamma Rao V/s. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao (1899) I.L.R. 24 M.I. (P.C.) their Lordships of the Privy Council observe that the ground of amendment must be something which existed at the date of the decree and that the section does not authorise the review of a decree which was right when it was made on the ground of the happening of some subsequent event. In Annamalai Chettiar V/s. Subramania Aiyar (1909) 4 M.L.T. 86 Wallis and Munro, JJ. held following the decision of the Privy Council that the ground for mending a decree or review must be something which existed at the date of the decree and were of opinion that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Waghela Raisangji Sihivasangji V/s. Shaik Masludin (1887) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 330 must be treated as overruled by the decision, of the Privy Council in Kotagiri Venkatasubbamma Rao V/s. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao (1899) I.L.R. 24 M.I. (P.C.) A similar view was taken in Golamali Jamedar V/s. Abdul Karim Sarkar 11 C.L.J. 26 and Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy V/s. Sripati Chatterji (1918) 23 C.W. 242.

(2.) Reference has been made by Mr. Ramadas for the appellant to Waghela Raisangji Shivasanji V/s. Shaik Masuludin (1887) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 330 Ram Lal V/s. Kalka Prasad (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 566, Waman V/s. Hari (1907) I.L.R. 31 Bom. 128 Muthuswami Pillai V/s. Shanmugasundram Pillai (1913) 13 M.L.T. 223, and Kishun Deyal Rai V/s. Musamat Kulpati Kuer (1918) 3 Pat. L.J. 372. As pointed on in Annamalai Chettiar V/s. Subramania Aiyar (1909) 4 M.L.T. 86 the decision of the Privy Council in effect overrules the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Waghela Raisangji Shivasangji V/s. Shaik Masuludin I.L.R. 13 Bom. 330 and the other decisions relied on by the appellant's Vakil follow the decision in Waghela Raisangji Shivasangji V/s. Shaik Masuludin I.L.R. 13 Bom. 330 and do not consider the decision of the Privy Council in Kotagirl Venkatasubbamma Rao V/s. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao (1899) I.L.R. Mad. 1.

(3.) It is in the view I take of the matter, unnecessary for me to decide whether the effect of the judgment of the Privy Council was to supercede the judgment of the District Court in A.S. No. 1.94 of 1909. The view taken by Wallis, C.J. and myself in Sri Bommadevara Venknta Narasimha Naidu V/s. Ram Venkatappayya has been dissented from by Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ. in Secretary of State for India V/s. Ranganayakkamma (1920) 12 L.W. 33. The decision in Sri Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu V/s. Ram Venkatappayya is before the Privy Council and a definite pronouncement on the law will soon be made.