PARAMAL BHATTI Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBUDRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed for the recovery of Rupees 8,156-3-0 on a promissory note for Rs. 6,000 dated 11 August 1920, executed by defendant 1. Defendant 1 is the only adult male member of a Nambudri illom known as Paramal Bhatti alias Bhatti. The suit was originally filed against defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 8 wore afterwards added as supplemental defendants upon their application I.A. No. 1340 of 1923 dated 20 September 1923. Of these, defendants 2 and 3 are step-mothers of defendant 1. Defendant 7 is the wife of defendant 1. Defendant 8 is the wife of defendant 1's elder brother. These four, namely, defendants 2, 3, 7 and 8 are known as Anthar janams according to the Nambudiri usage. Defendant 4 is the minor son and defendants 5 and 6 are the minor daughters of defendant 1. The supplemental defendants complained that defendant 1 was mismanaging the affairs of the illom, that the suit debt was contracted for purposes not binding on the illom, and that defendant 1 was not likely to defend the suit properly and prayed that they should be made parties. In the original plaint it was merely alleged that the plaint transaction was bona fide and was effected after making inquiries and for the necessity of defendant l's illom and that the amount has been utilized for illom purposes and the illom has been benefited by it. Thereupon the defendants filed I.A. No. 1488 of 1923 in which they prayed that the plaintiffs may be directed to state in detail the necessity for which the suit debt was contracted. The plaintiff filed a counter affidavit dated 16 October 1923, in which he stated: The plaint transaction took place in order to redeem the properties after paying off the possessory mortgages which were executed by the defendants illom to the members of Thozhanur Podinbakkareh Vilakkathaleh house on 22 June, 1908, for Rs. 1,500 to the members of Thozhanpur Vellot house on 10 March 1913 for a sum of Rs. 1,700 and Moidin Molla on 3 July 1917, for a sum of Rs. 1,000 as well as to pay off the sum of Rs. 2,000 and the interest thereon due to Padinhattu Kareh Narayanan Nambudiri under a promissory note.

(2.) The affidavit then proceeded to state that the mortgages were not as a matter of fact discharged and the amount obtained from the plaintiff was used to pay off the debt due to the aforesaid Narayanan Nambudiri and to buy an elephant for the defendants illom.

(3.) In the written statement of defendants 2 to 8 filed on 29 October 1923, it was stated in para 8 that the elephant was purchased in Dhanu 1096 (December 1920-January 1921), that the amount said to have been borrowed from the plaintiff was not utilised in purchasing it and that it was purchased from the income of the defendants illom. Issue 2 in the case is: "Is the illom of defendants liable?" Defendant 1 remained ex parte. The Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam decreed the suit against the defendants illom also. Defendants 2 to 8 file this appeal of whom defendant 2 has since died.