POULOSE Vs. PADMINI KUNHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff whose suit for relief against the Paliyam represented by the 1st defendant State of Travancore-Cochin by way of restitution under various heads of claim, has been dismissed by the court below in toto.

(2.) Though the appeal memorandum comprised the whole of the plaint claim, learned counsel Mr. V. Sankara Menon appearing for the appellant was content to press before us only that portion of it covered by Issue 8 in the case, and as against, such of the parties who had participated in the division of the Paliyam Estate, which took place pending suit, were alone made respondents. Issue 8 ran as follows :

(3.) These two decrees had been passed in favour of the Paliyam Estate against the plaintiff's family on foot of two promissory notes executed by the plaintiff's brother Chakkoru. On Ext. J representation made by plaintiff on 3-11-1110 subsequent to the passing of these decrees, the Paliayam Valia Achan granted to the plaintiff a full discharge thereunder provided he paid one half of the principal amount due under the promissory notes that led to the decrees as well as the costs and the interest due under the decrees by 15-1-1111, vide order on Ext. J dated 23-12-1110. According to the plaintiff and indeed it is clear on the evidence also that he made further representation under Ext. C dated 12-2-1111 and the Valia Achan was pleased to forego even the one-half of the principals of the promissory note amounts - vide order on Ext. C dated