P. Chandra Reddy, Offg. C.J. - (1.)THE main question to be answered by Full Bench is whether a party to a suit, who was absolved from liability by the trial Court, can impleaded as a respondent to an appeal prefer by an aggrieved party to which he was not originally made a party and a decree passed against him by virtue of the combined operation of rules 20 and 33 of O. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)THE facts material for this enquiry may be briefly set out: Respondents 7 and 8 originally laid action as reversioners to the estate of Ammanna, impeaching a gift made by the widow (1st defendant) in favour of her nephew the defendant on 26 -6 -1946. The last male -holder died in or about the year 1890 him surviving widow. The properties settled on the 2nd defendant were purchased by the widow in the year 1894 under Exs. B -5 and B -6 for a sum of Rs. 600/ -, having sold on 9 -11 -1894 20 -12 -1894 some of the properties belonging to husband's estate which are items 7 to 12 of schedule for Rs. 350/ - under Exs. B -40 and B -4.
The vendees in their turn conveyed then the predecessors -in -interest of the present appellants. The plaintiffs proceeded on the footing that the transactions were valid exchanges with consequence that properties obtained in exchange formed part of the reversion. During the pendency of the appeal, the widow died. Thereupon, plaintiff got the plaint amended as one for possession in respect of 'A' scheduled properties as items 1 to 6 and 13 of 'B' schedule not alienated by her with an alternative prayer that in case it should turn out that items 7 to 12 of B schedule were not properly exchanged for 'A' scheduled properties the plaintiff should have the right to recover possession of the said properties. Defendants 11 to 13, 17 and 18 were added as supplemental defendants. The 20th defendant brought another suit claiming to be a reversioner, but we are not concerned with that as it ended in dismissal which had become final, no appeal having been preferred against it.

(3.)THE defence of the 2nd defendant, so far relevant for the purpose of this appeal was that mamma had not exchanged any or the properties the last male -holder with the plaint 'A' schedule properties and that 'A' scheduled properties were her self -acquisitions and were throughout treated as her stridhana properties. The present appellants by their written statement supported plaintiffs case regarding the exchange of items 7 to 12 of the 'B' schedule and also raised plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek the alternative relief in regard to items 7 to 12 of 'B' schedule. The trial Court accepted the case of exchange and consequently gave a decree for the 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties other than items 7 to 12 of 'B' schedule.