MAHABOOB SUR FUZUVANTHU SRI RAJAH PARTHASARATHY APPA RAO SAVAI ASWARAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU Vs. SRI RAJAH VENKATADRI APPA RAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these is a revision petition against the order of Mr. S. Venkatasubba Rao, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, dated 30 April, 1925, whereby he appointed a Commissioner to take the accounts in respect of points Nos. 5 to 8 (the meaning of which will be explained later on) and whereby he framed an additional point on which the Commissioner was also to take accounts.

(2.) The second is a petition to revise another order of the same date whereby the same Subordinate Judge allowed a petition by defendants in the suit (O.S. No. 30 of 1916) for an independent enquiry and judgment by that Subordinate Judge on the points in dispute that arise in the suit as the result of the judgment of the Privy Council.

(3.) The litigation of which the suit referred to, No. 30 of 1916, is an off-shoot, originated in No. 35 of 1895 and concerns the Medur and Nidadavole testates. The previous history detailed to us at great length is, I find, set out in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadur V/s. Parthasarathi Appa Rao . The earlier suit, No. 35 of 1895, was in 1899 dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who found the adoption of Narayya Appa Rao valid. Meantime, on the 14 December, 1899, one Parthasarathi who was reversioner to the Nidadavole estate filed Suit No. 44 of 1899 claiming both that and the Medur estates against the two Appa Raos. There the adoption was held invalid. The appeals were consolidated in the High Court, and the latter held the adoption valid. The Privy Council in 1913 reversing the decision of the High Court [Venkata Narasimha Appa Row V/s. Parthasarathy Appa Row 23 Ind. Cas. 166 : 37 M. 199 : (1911) M.W.N. 299 : 12 A.L.J. 315 : 18 C.W.N. 554 : 26 M.L.J. 411 : 15 M.L.T. 285 : 16 Bom.L.R. 328 : 41 I.A. 51 (P.C.)] held the adoption invalid and declared the right of Venkayamma who was the natural mother of the adopted boy Narayya Appa Rao and of the two Appa Raos to the profits of the estates after her death. As a result of this, Parthasarathy obtained one-third of the Nidadavole estate. Venkayamma left a Will, and the present Suit No. 30 of 1916 is by the assignee of Parthasarathy against the legal representatives of the two Appa Raos (who are now dead). The plaintiff brings the suit as the assignee of the residues and legacies I and 2 left by Venkayamma and for the administration of her estate. The main defence to the suit is said to be limitation, also that the testatrix had no right pendente lite over the property and that the plaintiff is not the legal representative of Parthasarathy. On 29 November, 1917, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada decided the other issues for the plaintiff but held the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, Sadasiva Ayyar and Phillips, JJ., differed and in the Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 20, 24 and 26 of 1921 Schwabe, C.J., and Couts-Trotter and Kumaraswami Sastriar, JJ., held the suit not barred. This was affirmed by the Privy Council on 30 January, 1925. The High Court passed a preliminary decree on the Letters Patent Appeal which will be found in the Privy Council Record at page 628. The suit was remanded in order that the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada might inter alia, make the necessary enquiries and take certain account (1) of the moneys which under the declaration made by the High Court are re-payable by the defendants who were directed to pay the said moneys into Court, (2) of the debts and liabilities, if any, of the deceased Venkayamma, which were payable out of her estate, and, (3) of the amounts due to the respective legatees under the said Will Ex. A. The High Court also directed that after the necessary inquiries and accounts had been taken the Subordinate Judge should pass a final decree. It is from this that the present petitions come before us. The Subordinate Judge then was Mr. K. Sambasiva Rao, and on the 18 of October, 1922, he ordered the defendants to file a statement of accounts and to deposit their account-books. This was done on 19th December, 1922, and in March, 1923 the plaintiff's objections were heard. On the 4 of April, 1923, the Subordinate Judge framed tentative points for determination on the accounts. Both sides objected, and, on the 4 July, 1923, the Judge finally framed eight points for determination and according to his order; "the following points for determination are framed for trial. The above issues as amended etc., stand thus and are renumbered."