UNNAMALAI AMMAL Vs. ABBOY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been brought to enforce three mortgages evidenced by Exs. A, B and D. Audi and Ramaswami were father and son. Exs. A & B were executed by Ramaswami and D was executed after Ramaswami's death by Audi and Ramaswami's widows, the 1 defendant and another. Subsequent to the execution of these mortgages, the 1 defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against Audi and in execution of it she and her father, the 10th defendant, became the purchasers of the properties which had been previously mortgaged.

(2.) In regard to the first two deeds the question is, did the interest of Audi pass to the plaintiffs, the mortgagees. They were executed by Ramaswami, the son, but the Lower Court has found, and we agree with the finding, that he was the manager of the family. As regards the question whether the moneys were borrowed for family purposes, the learned Judge relying mainly on oral evidence and probabilities has come to the conclusion that they were not so borrowed. He, however, has failed to give effect to the admission contained in the later document,Ex.D. It is very clearly stated in it that the moneys under Exs. A & B were borrowed by Ramaswami for purposes binding on the family and as we have said it was executed not only by Audi but also by the 1 defendant. No reason has been shown why this admission should not be acted on. It must be remembered that evidence in the suit was given long after the transaction, whereas the interval of time between Exs. A and B on the one hand and D on the other was only four years. The Lower Court has, however, come to the conclusion that A & B are binding upon the share of Audi but for a different reason. It has been held that by Ex. D Audi ratified the mortgages A and B. This view may be open to question but we agree with the conclusion of the Lower Court.

(3.) Next we have to deal with Ex. D It was executed shortly after the death of Ramaswami. The consideration, namely, Rs. 4,000 was made up thus: