KANADAPPA ACHARY Vs. PVENGAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have great doubts but as my learned brothers are both of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in. the affirmative, I do not propose to dissent. Miller, J.

(2.) In this matter I am of opinion that the learned Judges who an: responsible for the reference to the Pull Bench are right in the conclusion at which they have arrived.

(3.) I think it must be conceded that the construction put upon Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1895 by the learned Chief Justice and Krishnaswami Ayyar, J., in Veerabadran Achari v. Suppiah Achari (1911) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 488, is that which its language most n iturally suggests, but the reasons for holding that it is not that which ought to prevail are, to my mind, very strong; they are stated in the judgment in Mutyala Bapayya v. Kosuri Muramullu (1912) M.W.N. 7 and I may re-state them.