Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.

1. This case appears to me to be indistinguishable from the case of Sheikh Sardar Ali v. Sheikh Dolliluddin Ostagar (1928) 48 C.L.J. 150 (S.B.). For the sake of clearness I will set out the dates in this case. The plaint was presented on the 30th July, 1919. The Second Appeal was presented on the 15th July, 1924. The Judge who heard the Second Appeal called for a finding and in consequence of that inevitable delay gave his judgment on the 9th February, 1928. On the 24th of April, 1928, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Judge who sitting alone had decided the Second Appeal. Before that Letters Patent Appeal was presented the amended Letters Patent of 1928 had become applicable to this Presidency on the 31st of January.

2. I should in any case differ from the decision in the Calcutta case cited above with great reluctance because it would lead to the result that a Second Appeal would lie in Calcutta where it would not lie in Madras. I should therefore not venture to differ from the considered opinion of the Calcutta Full Bench on any other ground than that 1 felt not merely that I was inclined to the opposite opi