GANGADHARAN Vs. H M D P SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (the first defendant) claims that he is entitled to benefits under Act XXXI of 1958. His claim has been allowed by the Trial Court, but disallowed by the lower appellate court. He was a subscriber to a chitty started under the Travancore Chitties Act of 1094; and he executed a chitty security bond for future instalments. The question is whether Act XXXI of 1958 applies to that debt.

(2.) In my opinion the case comes within the exclusion in S.2(c)(x) of Act XXXI of 1958. It is argued that since the chitty was not started under the Travancore Chitties Act of 1120, this exclusion will not apply. But, there is the other expression in S.2(c)(x) "conducted under any chit fund scheme"; and this case must come under that expression. It is argued that that expression is intended to cover only cases coming from Malabar area. I do not think that that expression can be restricted to cases coming from Malabar area alone. In my opinion any chit fund scheme anywhere in the State will come within that expression.

(3.) My attention is invited to the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in Raman Mohanan v. Vadakkekara Hindu Matha Dharma Paripalana Sabha (S. A. No. 1190 of 1961), where my learned brother has taken the same view in a similar case. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning of my learned brother.