THATTAN KONTNER S SON KUNHAN OF THEKKUMANGALAM DESAM Vs. MANGALATH MANAKAL NARAYANAN NAMBUDRIPAD S SON MOORTHI ALIAS ASHTAMOORTHI NAMBUDRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff is one of the Uralars of the Killikurishi Devaswom. The kanom sought to be redeemed is of the year 1884. It was granted to the family of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendants Nos. 5 to 10 are impleaded as the remaining Uralars of the temple. The defendants set up a renewal in 1905 to which the plaintiff was no party. The 11 defendant is the assignee of the rights of the kanomdars. The Courts below have held the renewal to be invalid and given a decree to the plaintiff for redemption. The nth defendant has preferred the second appeal.

(2.) A preliminary objection was taken that the nth defendant had no right to prefer the second appeal in as much as the plaintiff's co-uralars did not contest the decree of the lower appellate Court. We see no force in this objection. The 11 defendant as assignee of the mortgage interest is entitled to question the right of one of the co-mortgagors to redemption, whether or not the remaining co-mortgagors acquiesce in the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) It is argued in second appeal that the plaintiff was a consenting party to the renewal and that his name appears in Exhibit XXIV as one of the persons present when the resolutions therein set out were adopted. It appears there that " it is resolved that the Uralan that manages the affairs of the respective years should grant renewals with the greatest possible number of Uralars, receiving the renewal fees, signing fees at the rates now settled from tenants whose term of lease has expired." The actual renewal now impeached is Exhibit I. The plaintiff was no party to its execution, nor was he consulted about it. We do not understand Exhibit XX to dispense with the necessity for all the Uralars being consulted before the execution of the renewal. " The greatest possible number of Uralars receiving the renewal fees " does not mean that it is left to the option of a majority to set at nought a minority and to carry on the business of the Devaswom in the matter of renewals without any reference to that minority or without inviting its cooperation. We must, therefore, hold that the plaintiff, not having been consulted in respect of the renewal in question, is not precluded from impeaching it.