GOVINDA NAIR Vs. SRINIVASA PATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this case may be shortly stated. The appellant had a kanom over certain properties which belonged in jenm to the Kuthiravattath tarwad.

(2.) ON 6th September, 1923, the appellant borrowed Rs. 600 from and executed a promissory note in favour of one Appu Pattar who was the manager of a joint Hindu family. On 9th August, 1924, the appellant executed a deed of simple mortgage, Ex. P -1, hypothecating 18 items of property to Appu Pattar to cover the amount due under the promissory note of 1923 and a further cash advance. Ex. P -1 was for Rs. 1,000.

(3.) ON 9th August, 1935, a fresh document of mortgage, Ex. P -2 was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. This covered the same 18 items, but 15 out of these items were put in the possession of the mortgagee while the remaining three continued in the possession of the mortgagor. It is not in dispute that Ex. P -2 was executed in renewal of Ex. P -1, the amount due as per Ex. P -2 being Rs. 1910.