Sadasiva Iyer, J.
1. I agree with the decision in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu I.L.R.(1908) M. 318 to this extent that the same Appellate Court cannot pronounce (except when it is moved by an application for review) a different opinion on a relevant question of law from that which it held in a previous stage of the same case and on which earlier opinion, it based its decision remanding the suit to the lower court.
2. The other dictum laid down in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu I.L.R. (1908) M. 318 namely, that the High Court sitting on further appeal from the second decision of the remanding Court could not consider the correctness of that opinion when it comes before it in the same case because the remand order itself had not been set aside by appeal or otherwise, has been doubted in Seshu Gurukkal v. Somasundara MudaVar (1909) 7 M.L.T. 93 but it is unnecessary to consider that other dictum for the decision of this second appeal.
3. If the decision of this Court on the former occasion on the question of limitation is binding on us now (as I hold it is on the strength of Subba Lakshmamma v. Venkatarayudu I.L.R(1908) . Mad 318 this second appeal fails, there being no other arguable point in it.
4. I would therefore dismiss this second appeal with costs.
5. Mr. Venkatrama Sastri asks the Court now to apply the law as settled in Vitta Tayaramma v. Chattakondu Sevayya I.L.R(1918) . Mad. 1078 at this final stage of this case, the previous ruling in the remand judgment, having been held not to be good law by the Full Bench in the latter case.
6. I adhere to the view expressed by the learned Chief Justice and myself in Kailasam Pillai v. Nataraja Tambiran (1916) 39 M.L.R. 271 that it is not open to a Court to take two different views of the law in different stages of the same case. I think that that was the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in Balavanl Ramachandra v. Secretary of State I.L.R. 32. Bom 432 though they allowed a correction which in their opinion would have been made at the date of the first judgment if the attention of the Court had been drawn to the error. With regard to Suryanarayana v. Venkatramana I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 681. I cannot find any decision in the first order on the point decided in the final judgment. The language of the Privy Council in Jugodumba Dossee v. Tarakant Bannerjee (1880) 6 C.L.R. 121 seems to me to assume the same proposition, and then to lay down that it will not be affected by the fact that the party who wishes to contest the correctness of the first decision was then ex parte.
7. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.