A C A GANAPATHI MUDALIAR Vs. ARUMUGATHAMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 9 of 1984, on the file of subordinate Judge's Court at Tenkasi, are the appellants. Plaintiff arumughathammal was the sole respondent in the second appeal. She died and her legal representative has been impleaded as second respondent.

(2.) SUIT filed by the (deceased) plaintiff was one to recover a sum of Rs. 23,248-96. P. by sale of mortgaged properties, and for other consequential reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant on his own behalf and as legal guardian of defendants 7 and 8, executed a simple mortgage deed on 21. 10. 1975 for a sum of Rs. 17,000, agreeing to repay the same within a period of three years therefrom. He also agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. l. 25p. per Rs. loo per month on the original principal. It is averred that the transaction was entered into for the benefit of the family and in his capacity as father-cum-manager of the family. Defendants 2 to 6 who are major adult members of the family have also attested that mortgage deed fully knowing that the family property is offered as security. It is said that the liability was incurred for the purpose of the family and, therefore, all the members are personally liable and also from out of the joint family properties. First defendant issued a notice under Ex. A-1, questioning his liability, and this necessitated the filing of the suit.

(3.) TRIAL Court, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that Ex. A-1 is supported by consideration, and the other defendants are also liable to discharge the debt. It came to the conclusion that the debt was incurred for family purposes, and defendants 2 to 6 were also attestors to the documents. Therefore, Ex. A-1 is binding not only the first defendant, but also on all the persons claiming under him. It further came to the conclusion that even if the case of the first defendant is accepted, the document can be said only as one supported by consideration. The trial Court held that even though three years have elapsed as on the date of Ex. A-1, that could be taken as a contract to pay a barred debt under Section 25 (3) of the Contract act, and the same is enforceable.