( 1 ) THIS appeal came before Ramchandra Rao, J. for hearing. Before him, Shri C. Poorniah, the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank contended that it is not necessary for the plaintiff-Appellant to file a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C. as by the date of the withdrawal of the claim petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58 the plaintiff had already filed a regular suit with regard to the declaration of its title. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions reported in K. Palaniappa Chettiar v. Ramswami Servai AIR 1937 Mad 582 and P. Umanath Bhandary v. Pedru Souza, AIR 1950 Mad 19. He also brought to the notice of the learned Judge a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sivaraman v. P. M. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar AIR 1969 Mad 166 in which it was observed that the earlier decisions in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Ramswami Servai AIR 1937 Mad 582 and P. Umanath Bhandary v. Pedru Souza AIR 1950 Mad 19 must be deemed to have been overruled in view of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Seethamma v. Kotareddi, AIR 1949 Mad 586 (FB ). Ramachandra Rao J. felt that a question of law of con