SANKARAN NAIR Vs. KKKOCHAPPU MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Appellate Court says in paragraph 12 of its judgment that under Exhibit I, Chathunni s right was coupled with an obligation to perform certain services. But we do not find in Exhibit I, which was produced in a mutilated condition, any such obligation imposed. In Exhibit B produced by the 5th defendant, as a copy of Exhibit I in its unmutilated state, such a condition appears, but the District Munsif has given prima facie good grounds for treating it with suspicion. The Subordinate Judge has not referred to Exhibit B at all.

(2.) Before disposing of this second appeal, we think it necessary to obtain definite findings from the lower Appellate Court on the following issues :

(3.) 1. Is Exhibit B a true copy of the original deed, Exhibit I, in its unmutilated condition P Were any conditions attached to the anubhavam grant made under Exhibit I? (In coming to a conclusion on this question, the lower Appellate Court will also consider whether there is any explanation for the use of the word adima in the course of the recitals in Exhibits II and XI).