EDAPPALLY VALIYA RAJA Vs. REVIVARMAN THIRUMULPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen in a suit in enforcement of a transaction, more or less of the nature of a 'catching bargain.'

(2.) Under Ext. A, dated Dhanu 1, 1030 M.E. (corresponding to December 16, 1864), the plaintiff's ancestor made an endowment of 151 raises (a little less than Rs. 53) to Ayikkacheri Temple belonging to the defendant's family for the purpose of cooking one measure (nazhi) of rice everyday and making an oblation thereof to the deity and delivering the consecrated rice to the endower and his successors for ever and ever, and the defendant's ancestor accepted the endowment. It is admitted that the stipulated service was being carried out regularly till 1103 and defaulted thereafter. For recovery of value of the cooked rice that fell in arrears, the plaintiff had filed O. S. Nos. 80 of 1105, 1110 of 1110 and 198 of 1119 in the Court of the Munsiff, Mavelikara, got decrees and obtained satisfaction thereof. The judgment in the first suit is Ext. B; and that of the Trial Court in the third suit is Ext. I which was affirmed in appeal by the judgment, Ext. C. They show that in those suits the plaintiff claimed the price of rice at 7 chuckrams (roughly 4 annas) per measure payable every day; but the Court decreed the claim at one chuckram [3 1/2 paise] per measure only. The present suit is for the price office accrued in the six years, 1945-50, on the averment that, even after the aforesaid decrees, the defendant has not been carrying out the trust. Here also, claim is made at 7 chuckrams per day, amounting to Rs. 89.67 p. per annum, with interest past and future; and that has been decreed by the Courts below disallowing interest before suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.

(3.) As return for Rs. 53/- paid a century ago by the plaintiff's ancestor to the defendant's ancestor the plaintiff is claiming from the defendant Rs. 89 odd, year after year, for ever and a day. This is unconscionable according to every standard known to law. The defendant in his written statement pleaded inability to perform the trust with the proceeds of the endowment, offered to return to the plaintiff the amount received by his ancestor and prayed to be relieved of the obligation to which he was no party personally. But the plaintiff resisted the plea; and the Courts below have held the defendant bound by the undertaking of his ancestor. The question in this second appeal is whether the view of the Courts below is sustainable in law.