SUBRAMANIA PATTAR Vs. KRISHNA EMBRANDERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The seven plaintiffs are the junior members of a Malabar brahmin illom (tarwad of brahmins is usually called illom) of which the 1st defendant is the karnavan. The 1st defendant when he was a junior member in 1906 obtained a simple bond in his name. While still a junior member, he obtained a decree thereon in his own name on 9-7-1910. Three years afterwards (in 1913) he became the karnavan of tarwad on the death of the prior karnavan. He treated the bond he obtained in 1906 and the decree thereon which he obtained in 1910 as the self acquistion and transferred the decree to the 2nd defendant on 8-12-1915 for a consideration of Rs. 650. The 2nd defendant is a Pattar while the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are Embrandris. The 3rd defendant is the judgment-debtor under the decree.

(2.) The plaintiff stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint that "the 2nd defendant lives not far from the illom of the plaintiff and knew very well that the decree amount really belongs to the plaintiff s tarwad. With this knowledge he fraudulently colluded with the 1st defendant and accepted the assignment abovesaid subject to all risks". The plaintiffs therefore prayed for a declaration that the amount due under the decree in O.S. No. 254 of 1910 is really due to the tarwad of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they prayed for other appurtenant reliefs.

(3.) The District Munsif found (a) that the amount of bond of 1906 belonged to the tarwad and therefore the decree amount also belonged to the tarwad and not to the 1st defendant as his self acquisition; (b) that as the tarwad had allowed the 1st defendant to appear as the ostensible private owner of the decree and of the debt due under the bond for nearly ten years before this suit was brought and as the 2nd defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value and a stranger to the tarwad, the tarwad is estopped from contending as against the 2nd defendant that the decree amount belonged to it and from contending that the 1st defendant had no right to transfer it to the 2nd defendant. He therefore dismissed the plaintiff s suit.