(1.) In this appeal there arose a point to be primarily argued and decided, viz., the question whether certain evidence recorded in an earlier suit was admissible as evidence in the suit out of which this appeal arises. Their Lordships having already expressed to the parties the conclusion which they had reached, viz., that the evidence in question was admissible, now proceed to state the reasons upon which that conclusion was based. The relevant facts must first be stated. In the year 1873 the then Rajah of Pittapur, Gangadhara, Rama Rao (who may be conveniently referred to as the late Rajah), having had no son born to him, adopted Ramakrishna, the son of the Rajah of Venkatagiri. It is alleged that on 5 October 1933 Privy Council 203 1835, the late Rajah's wife, Mangayimma, give birth to a son, who is the plaintiff in the present suit and respondent to this appeal, and who will be referred to as the plaintiff. The late Rajah died in the year 1890, leaving his estate to the plaintiff by a will in which he described the plaintiff as his "aurasa"(natural born) son.
(2.) In 1891 Ramakrishna brought a suit (No 6 of 189L) in the District Court of Godavari against the Court of Wards as defendant 1 in the plaintiff as defendant 2, in which he prayed for the following relief : (1) That it may be declared that defendant 2 is not the son of the deceased Rajah and that the will in his favour is wholly ineffectual and invalid. (2) That if the Court should be of opinion that defendant 2 is the son of the deceased Rajah then that it may be ascertained and declared which of the properties taken possession of by defendant 1 are impartible and which are partible, and that it may be further declared that the plaintiff (i.e., Ramakrishna) by primogeniture is entitled to all such properties as may be declared to be impartible and also that he is, as the eldest surviving member of the late Rajah's family, entitled to possession of all properties which may be declared to be partible. (3) That defendant 1 may be decreed to deliver to the plaintiff (Ramakrishna) possession of the estates and other properties immovable and moveable in the schedules hereunder written and more particularly mentioned and all other properties in the possession or enjoyment of the late Rajah of Pittapur at the time of his death taken possession of by defendant 1 as in the plaint alleged. (4) That an account be taken of all the properties, immovable and moveable, the possession of the late Rajah of Pittapur at the time of his death taken possession of by defendant 1. (5) That defendant 1, may be decreed to pay to the plaintiff (Ramakrishna) mesne profits of the properties taken possession of by defendant 1 from the time the said defendant 1 took possession of such properties till such properties are returned to the plaintiff (Ramakrishna) (6) That the defendants may be decreed to pay the costs of the suit. (7) That plaintiff (Ramakrishna) may have such further or other relief in the premises as to this Honourable Court shall seem meet and the nature of the case may require.
(3.) In that suit the District Judge found that the plaintiff "was not born from the womb of Mangayamma, and that ha is not the son of the late Rajah of Pittapur;"and he held that the plaintiff was not persona designata under the will, and not being the "aurasa,"son, there was no gift in his favour. A decree was made declaring that the plaintiff was not the son of the late Rajah, and that the will in his favour was wholly ineffectual and invalid, and directing that possession be delivered to Ramakrishna of the estates and other properties immovable and movable in four schedules mentioned. On appeal the High Court held that the plaintiff took under the will as persona designata and that the question of his sonship did not arise. On further appeal their Lordships' Board took the same view. The case is reported in 26 I. A. 83 [Sri Raja Rao Venkata V/s. Court of Wards, 1899 22 Mad 383].