SRIMAN MADABHUSHI GOPALACHARYULU Vs. EMMANI SUBBANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject of this suit is the amount of the kattubadi payable to the plaintiff Zemindar by the defendants who are agraharamdars, and the question argued before us is whether this is res judicata against the 10th defendant by reason of the decree in second appeal No. 838 of 1911 confirming the decree in A.S. No. 451 of 1905 which decided the question against the agraharamdars reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge in their favour.

(2.) In O.S. No. 56 of 1901 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge s Court of Rajahmundry two of the agraharamdars sued the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate and the Zemindar for a declaration that the kattubadi was only 580 joining the other agraharamdars as defendants.

(3.) The Additional Subordinate Judge of Godavari gave the plaintiffs a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1901 which was reversed on 1st December 1910 by the District Judge of Kistna in A.S. No. 451 of 1905. Prativadi Bhayamkaram Rukminiamma, one of the agraharamdars through whom the present appellant (the 10 defendant.) claims, was impleaded as the sixth defendant in the former suit and as the fourth respondent in the appeal to the District Court. She died in Match 1908 nearly three years before the disposal of the appeal, and the appellant, who was the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate, failed to bring on her legal representatives, nor were they made parties in the second appeal to this Court preferred by the plaintiffs in S.A. No. 838 of 1911. The District Judge has found the amount of the kattubadi in the present case to be res judicata against the 10th defendant Sriman Madhabhushi Gopalacharyulu, on the ground that he was impleaded in the second appeal as the representative of the deceased Rukminiamma, but this appears to be an error as Prativadi Bhayamkaram Gopalacharyulu who was impleaded as the fourth respondent in the second appeal was the 9th defendant in the Original Suit and a different person from the present 10th defendant.