Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order refusing to make the appellant a party defendant to the suit, O.S. No. 56 of 1930, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta. There is another connected C.M.A. No. 313 of 1934 refusing to record a compromise alleged to have been entered into between the parties to the said suit and also the appellant. There is another C.R.P. No. 1061 of 1934, arising out of the same matter permitting withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff. These matters have been dealt with by no less than three Subordinate Judges and have come up to the High Court in some form or other and were dealt with by no less than five learned Judges of this Court. The result has been that some of the orders are not reconcilable one with the other, and when the matters came up for final disposal it caused not a little embarrassment to the trial Judge so as to prevent him from having a correct approach to the several questions presented to him for decision. Before dealing with the contentions advanced on either side by the learned counsel it is necessary to advert briefly to the history of this litigation. There were four brothers who formed a joint family, namely Soliyappa, Arunachala, defendant 1 in O.S. No. 56 of 1930, Muthuveerappa and Ramaswami, defendant 3 in the said suit. The plaintiff is the widow of the said Muthuveerappa and the appellant in this case, Meyappa, is the son of Solayappa who died in or about 1908. The appellant had a brother Natesa alias Ramaswami who was given in adoption to defendant 1 in this case, and he is also now defendant 2 in the said suit. The family appears to have owned considerable property. Apart from Immovable properties it carried on extensive trade in Rangoon, Penang, Saigon and other places. In or about 1924 the parties became divided with the aid of arbitrators. It appears that an arrangement was entered into at that time, that having regard to the incapacity of Muthuveerappa, the properties and moneys that fell or would fall to the share of Muthuveerappa should be taken care of and managed by defendants 1 and 3, and in pursuance of the said arrangement they did really undertake that duty and have been in possession of the said properties and moneys.

2. The said Muthuveerappa died on 6th January 1928, and on 8th January 1928 a document came into existence from which it is evident that the management was continued by defendants 1 and 3. The document provides that an arrangement should be made for an adoption to the said Muthuveerappa. It also purports to cut off the widow with a sum of Rs. 31,000 for her maintenance. The plaintiff was apparently dissatisfied with the treatment accorded to her by defendants 1 and 3 and misunderstandings arose. It also appears that there were misunderstandings between the appellant Meyappa and defendants 1 and 3, and there were two suits filed as the result of such misunderstandings between Meyappa and defendants 1 and 3 being O.S. No. 42 of 1927 and O.S. No. 75 of 1929 on the file of the Sub-Court of Devakotta. The plaintiff was contemplating a litigation against defendants 1 and 3. Meyappa took this opportunity and offered financial assistance to her as is evident from Ex. 1 under which he agreed to finance to the extent of Rs. 20,000. With his aid the said suit, O.S. No. 56 of 1930, was launched, and it is in evidence that he engaged a law agent, one Venkatachala Aiyar, to assist her in the conduct of the litigation. He also engaged one Mr. V.S. Lakshmi Narayana Ayyar as Vakil and it is also in evidence that he was giving instructions on her behalf. In the suit filed by the plaintiff she prayed for an account of the management by defendants 1 and 3 and for delivery to her of all the documents, securities, title deeds and moneys in their possession. According to her a very large amount would be due and owing by defendants 1 and 3 to the extent of about 20 lakhs. In the plaint she stated that her husban