MATHAI ALIAMMA Vs. SARASWATHI ANTHERJANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has to be allowed for the following reasons. The heirs of the deceased plaintiff are the appellants before me. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 250 due to the plaintiff by the husband of the first defendant & the father of defendants 2 to 4 under document dated 24-11-1950 which is Ext. A. According to the plaintiff , the deceased Sankaran Nambudiri Narayanan Nambudiri executed this document and borrowed this amount for purposes binding on the Illom of the defendants.

(2.) The defence was that the transaction is not binding on the Illom, as it is neither supported by necessity nor by any consideration. One of the attack on the plaintiffs case was namely, that Ext. A is not a genuine document. The Trial Court, after a consideration of the material evidence in this case, came to the conclusion that Ext. A is genuine. It was also satisfied that the plaintiff has made reasonable enquiries before advancing the amount to Sankaran Narayanan Nambudiri under Ext. A. In this view, the Trial Court held that the transaction evidenced by Ext. A is for tarwad necessity and binding on the defendants I to 4, and as such, granted a decree as prayed for.

(3.) On appeal by the first defendant alone, the lower appellate court upheld the finding of the Trial Court regarding the genuineness of the transaction evidenced by Ext. A. But relying upon the provisions of S.7 and 8 of the Travancore Act 3/1106 it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established tarwad necessity for this transaction and in this view, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree against the Illom properties as such.