KRISHNAN Vs. NARAYANI PILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals arise from three suits for redemption of mortgages. A common question arises in all the three cases, viz., whether the plaintiffs are members of Swaroopathu tarwad which mortgaged the properties involved in the three suits. The defendants contended that the mortgages were executed by Easwari Madhavi, the last surviving member of Swaroopathu tarwad, that on her death the tarwad became extinct and that the plaintiffs have no right to the property. The plaintiffs' case was that they were adopted into that tarwad pursuant to a Royal Neet and as such they are entitled to redeem the properties. The three second appeals were heard together.

(2.) S. A. No. 840 of 1960 may be considered first. The property mortgaged is Sreepandaravakai land and it was demised to Swaroopathu tarwad on Kudumbapporuthi tenure. The main contentions of the defendants in second appeal were that the Royal Neet on which the plaintiffs relied was not properly proved, that they were therefore not entitled to redeem the properties, that the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession and that the michavaram claimed could not be allowed. The courts below have concurrently held against the defendants and decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. Defendants 1 and 11 have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) The main point raised on behalf of the appellants is that the Royal. Neet was not proved in the case. The plaintiffs produced Ext. P 5 dated 15-4-1074 as copy of the Dattuneet. The copy was issued by the officer in charge of the Palace Office on 14-1-1956. It is not disputed by the appellants that a Royal Neet is not a public document. The argument was that the Officer who issued the copy was not a public officer and that the copy granted by that officer should not be treated as a certified copy admissible in evidence under S.77 of the Evidence Act.