THARAVAI KUTTI Vs. P KADUNGON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these Second Appeals, the substantial question that arises for decision, and which has been held against the appellants, is as to whether a Kana Kychit executed by the appellants on 10 8 1944 is valid and binding as against the appellants.

(2.) In S. A.347/56, the question has been concurrently found against the appellants and that decision is that it is binding, so far as the appellants are concerned. Again in S. A. 348/56, the lower appellate court has held that the said document of 10 - 8 1944, Kana Kychit is binding so far as the appellants are concerned. The document in question is Ext. A1 in the proceedings connected with .8. A. 348/56, and Ext. A4 in proceedings connected with S. A. 347/56. In this Second Appeal on behalf of the appellants, who are same in both the Second Appeals, Mr. Mohammed Naha, learned counsel appearing for them, has attacked the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts regarding the binding nature of the respective Kana Kychit dated 10- 8-1944.

(3.) Before Mr. Naha could proceed with his contentions based upon the merits, the learned counsel, Mr. V. P. Gopalan Nambiar, appearing for the contesting respondents in both these appeals, brought to my notice that there is the decision of the learned District Munsiff of Kozhikode in O S.240/51 and according to the learned counsel, the said decision will operate as res judicata in these proceedings and that if this court accepts his contentions regarding that aspect of the matter, a consideration on the merits will become unnecessary.