P B KRISHNAMACHARIAR Vs. G N RAMABADRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question of the binding nature of an alienation on the reversioners to the estate of one Srinivasa Raghavachari. The applicants, defendants 3 to 6, who are the representatives of the alienee, substantially failed, though the findings of the learned Judge are mostly in their favour and hence this appeal.

(2.) In the suit, the plaintiffs impeached also another alienation in favour of the 7th defendant They succeeded in the trial court but there is no appeal by the unsuccessful defendants.

(3.) Notwithstanding the extraordinary precautions taken by the alienee and the assurances given at the time of the alienation by the plaintiff's father who is a graduate and their maternal grand-uncles, who are advocates, the alienee could not but face a litigation, unrighteously, as it seems to us, instigated and conducted by the plaintiff's father who was responsible largely for bringing about the alienation for his own benefit. This Court, however, not being a court of morals, is not entitled to decide the case on these considerations and we have to mete out justice according to well-established principles of Hindu law. Srinivasaraghavachari, the last male owner, died in 1898 and left behind him the first defendant then a young widow aged 17 years and a daughter, the second defendant. The estate then consisted of 35 acres of wet land and 35 acres of Punja in Devanathan village and 250 acres roughly in Paruthipattu village near Avadi. These 250 acres consisted of wet and dry lands. There were also two houses, one in Big Street, Kumbakonam and the other in Sannadhi Street, Conjeevaram besides some shops in Conjeevaram. He left also debts to the tune of Rs. 4000 to 5000 and cash in G. P. Notes of Rs. 12000 and jewels worth about Rs. 4000 to 5000. There was also the mother of Srinivasaraghavachari who survived him and the G. P. notes of the value of Rs. 12000 were utilised in settling her maintenance claim. In or about 1910, the marriage and nuptials of the 2nd defendant were performed at a cost of nearly Rs. 18000 for which purpose the lauds of the extent of 250 acres in Paruthipattu near Avadi were sold. The estate which the first defendant inherited from her husband was looked after and managed by her father till 1905 when he became a 'sanyasi'. The father also was a rich man owning properties worth two lakhs. After the death of the father, the first defendant managed her estate and perhaps after the marriage of the 2nd defendant, the son-in-law also assisted her in the management. It is in evidence that the estate was not fetching sufficient income to meet the requirements of the family. There were also litigations pertaining to the estate which involved the estate in heavy expenditure. The first defendant's son-in-law, the 2nd defendant's husband, started in 1920 a cinema business which resulted in loss and the mother-in-law purchased the lands of the son-in-law in Kannivakkam and discharged his debts to the extent of about Rs. 20000. As the result of the property of the son-in-law having been lost, his family became entirely dependant upon the first deft & the estate of Srinivasaraghavachari. The 2nd defendant has a number of children, three boys and five girls leaving out a child which died. The maintenance and education of the children and the medical expenses of the 2nd defendant who was constantly ill was(?) as well as her husband Sundaravaradachari had to be met by the first defendant from estate. In 1928, the eldest of the daughters of the 2nd defendant, Komalavalli, had to be married and expenses had to be incurred for that marriage and later for her nuptials in 1930. The first, defendant has got five brothers, the maternal uncles of the 2nd defendant. Of these Mr. C. V. Rajagopalachari, D. W. 2 is an Advocate at Madras and C. V. Jagannathachari is a leading member of the Bar at Kumbakonam. As there were pressing debts to be paid, the pltffs' father and their maternal grand-uncle Mr. Rajagopala-chari, D. W. 2, approached in 1932, D. W. 1, Sri-nivasachariar, an Advocate, practising at Conjeevaram who was also a Government Pleader for over 20 years. As Sundaravaradachari and D. W. 2 wished to sell the house and shops at Conjeevaram they hoped that D. W. 1's client and the head of a Mutt, P. B. Ananthacharyaswami would buy the property. This Ananthacharyaswami had a number of 'sishyas' and was the head of a Tenkalai Mutt at Conjeevaram. He is the father of the 3rd defendant and defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of the 3rd defendant. The attempts of the two advocates and Sundaravaradachari were successful and a sale deed for Rs. 7500 was executed on the 30th September 1932, Ex. D. 1(a), by defendants 1 and 2 and Sundaravaradachari as guardian of his minor sons, the plaintiffs. This document is attested by the maternal uncle of the 2nd defendant, D. W. 2 and D. W. 1 the pleader of Conjeevaram and two others. A security of immovable property was also given for this sale securing the properties which the 1st defendant purchased from the son-in-law, Sundaravaradachari. The Swamiji was at that time on tour and he apparently wanted to be satisfied about the 'bona fides' of the sale and it was after his return that the consideration was paid in full discharge of two of the seven items of debts agreed to be discharged in part under the terms of the sale deed. The two debts which were fully discharged are the debts due to C. S. Narayanaswami Iyer of Kumbakonam which is item 2 in the sale deed and which is stated, according to the recitals, to have been incurred in 1928 for the marriage of Komalavalli, the principal amount of which was Rs. 3000. The second debt that was fully discharged was the debt due to the Kumbakonam bank. On the 4th November 1932, the Kumbakonam bank wrote to D. W. 2 stating that there was no written representation by the borrowers at the time the loan was advanced, but one V. Krishnaswami Aiyangar told the Bank about the purpose of the loan. The bank enclosed with that letter Ex. D. 3, addressed to the vendee Anantachariar in which it is mentioned that the loan of Rs. 3000 was taken from the bank by Lakshmi Ammal, the 1st defendant and Sundaravaradachariar and that it was understood that the said loan was taken for the purpose of the marriage and nuptials of the daughter of Sundaravaradachariar. The letter gave also particulars regarding the balance of the principal and interest due in respect of that loan. On 25-4-1934, after the Swami returned from his tour, defendants 1 and 2 and Sundaravaradachariar as father and guardian of the plaintiffs gave a letter to the vendee authorising the vendee to discharge the two debts, i.e., the debt due to the Kumbakonam Bank and the debt due to Narayanaswami Iyer of Kumbakonam which were incurred for the expenses of the marriage and nuptials of the grand-daughter of the 1st defendant, i.e., Komalavalli. This is intended to vary the stipulation in the sale deed that these and other debts should be discharged in part from the consideration for the sale payable by Ananthachariar to the vendors. The amount was thereafter paid and C. S. Narayanaswami Iyer gave a letter to Ananthachariar on 1st May 1934, Ex. D. 7, acknowledging receipt of the full payment of the debt which had by then riped into a decree in O. S. No. 9 of 1934, Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. Narayanaswami Iyer undertook in that letter to enter up full satisfaction of the decree after the Court reopened after summer recess. The letter also added that the loan of Rs. 3000 was taken from him by Sundaravaradachari and C. V. Rajagopalachari, D. W. 2 on 16th July 1938 on the representation made to him that it was required for meeting the bills of expenses incurred in connection with the marriage of Komalavalli, the daughter of the 2nd defendant. This letter is attested by Mr. S. Panchapakesa Sastri, advocate (now a Judge of this court). The amount due to the Kumbakonam Bank was also paid and the debt discharged and there is no dispute regarding that.