ABUBAKER Vs. KUNJU MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals arise from six suits instituted before the Crangannur Munsiff 's Court by the receiver appointed by the Parur district Court in O. S. 75 of 1104. Those suits were to enforce six kuri security bonds executed severally by different subscribers in favour of the foreman. The said O. S. 75 was one instituted for the administration of his estate. There were three plaintiffs in the suit and the court made one of them receiver. On certain grounds common to all the six suits the District Munsiff dismissed them all. The plaintiff preferred appeals against those decrees before the Anjikaimal District Court but he died before they were disposed of. The two remaining plaintiffs in O. S. 75 and the legal heirs of the original plaintiff got themselves impleaded as additional appellants in all the appeals. The objection the respondents in the various appeals raised against the legal competence of the new appellants to come on record and continue the appeals was repelled by the learned Additional District Judge before whom the appeals came up for disposal. His ultimate decision was however that the appeals should all be dismissed. THESE second appeals are against the decrees so rendered.

(2.) THE learned District Munsiff and the learned Appellate judge concurrently found that the claim under the several bonds put in suit were all duly satisfied. With respect to the bonds in S. A. Nos. 81 and 85 discharge was effected by payments to certain non-prized subscribers as per the foreman's directions and he himself passed the necessary vouchers, to the respective obligors. Exs. III and II are the relative vouchers. As per the bonds in the other suits some were transferred by the foreman himself and the others after his death by his legal heirs to certain other non-prized subscribers. THE obligors under those bonds paid the amounts due by them to the respective transferees. Before us the factum and the validity of the payments under all the six bonds were sought to be impugned. Whether in second appeal we can or should go into these questions is a matter for serious consideration.

(3.) BEFORE we explain how that decision would rule these cases two other points have to be disposed of. One relates to the truth of the discharge pleaded in these cases and the other to the true meaning of clause 15 of the kuri vaimpu. We have said that the decisions of the two lower courts are concurrent about discharge. The appellants urged that there was no legal evidence to sustain the finding on this point and that the appellate court had not brought to bear on the question any independent consideration. The appellate judgments no doubt give room for such a complaint but on reading the trial court's judgments and the evidence we do not think we should pay any heed to either aspect of the criticism. In all the cases the plea of discharge is supported by registered documents and there is also formal evidence in corroboration. In the circumstances we cannot in second appeals go behind the concurrent decisions the two lower courts made on the question.