PATHUMMA Vs. VADHYAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is same in both the appeals. She was the 1st defendant in OS 478 of 1118 and the plaintiff in OS 307 of 1119 of the Vadakkancherry Munsiffs Court. OS 478 of 1118 was by the manager of Malabar Brahmin Mana for the recovery of arrears of Michavarom and other dues in respect of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties outstanding with the 1st defendant by name Pathumma under three Kanom Kychits, Ext. B dated 29.8.1108 for the A schedule properties, Ext. D dated 32.12.1109 for the B schedule properties and Ext. A dated 3.6.1116 for the C Schedule properties. The 1st defendants contentions in respect of the claims for A and B schedule properties were confined to the Paravassi price for paddy and millet and interest claimed in respect thereof and also to the mode of appropriation of Rs. 846-1-0 sent by her by money order. She had also pleaded full discharge of her liabilities by that remittance. Her contentions as regards the C schedule properties were the subject of the controversy in OS 478 of 1118, and the connected case OS 307 of 1119. She stated that she was holding the C schedule properties under the terms of a Kychit Ext. F of 1074 and not under Ext. A of 1116. According to her, she was an ignorant and unlettered pardanashin woman and she came to execute Ext. A without understanding its contents or implications as a result of fraud, collusion, undue influence and misrepresentation at a time when her sole adviser her husband was undergoing the sentence passed against him in a criminal case. This Ext. A contained unconscionable terms different from the prior Kychit Ext. F. She would not have accepted Ext. A had she known the real import of the same. It was therefore not binding on her or the C schedule properties. She was however prepared and ready to pay the dues according to the terms of Ext. F. While Ext. F had not made any provision for Kuttikanam (Ipän¡mWw) on account of trees of wild growth in the C schedule properties and the payment of Aadiyanthiram, these directions were made in Ext. A for the payment of the same. The capacity of the Jenmis Para was mentioned in Ext. A to be 11 Edangalies according to the standard measure. She questioned this as well. Minor contentions relating to the rate of paddy and millet were also raised in the case.

(2.) The connected suit OS 307 of 1119 was filed by this Pathumma for a declaration that the Kanom Kychit Ext. A of OS 478 of 1118 which was the same as Ext. 1 in OS 307 of 1119 was not binding on her or the properties scheduled in the plaint. The properties here were the C schedule properties in OS 478 of 1118. Her grounds of attack of this Kanom Kychit of 1116 were alleged in this plaint to obtain the relief that the said document was not binding on her or the properties.

(3.) OS 478 of 1118 was tried and decided first. The Trial Court found that the terms in Ext. A relating to the C schedule properties were not binding on the 1st defendant and the plaint C schedule properties, that the 1st defendant Pathumma was not a willing and intelligent party to the execution of the same, that she would not have been a party to it had she known that the terms and conditions of Ext. A were not similar to those of the document which she was supposed to be renewing, that she was a Pardanashin lady who had no independent advice in the execution of Ext. A document, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any relief on the basis of Ext. A. The plaintiffs claim for paravasi was disallowed. Paddy and millet were allowed to be valued at Rs. 1-4-0 per para. The sum of Rs. 846-1-0 sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff was allowed to be appropriated towards the amount decreed to him. The decree was passed consistently with these findings and the parties were directed to suffer their costs.