SELLAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. SUPPAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been brought to enforce a simple mortgage granted to the plaintiff on 8th January, 1916 (Ex. A) by the first defendant and his father, the late Zamindar of Neduvasal to secure the re-payment of Rs. 8,300. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee under two earlier deeds executed in his favour on 16 December, 1910, for about Rs. 86,000. The suit mortgage comprises six villages, of which four have been subsequently sold by the first defendant and his father to the second defendant by Ex. F dated 14 August, 1919. The latter by Ex. H dated the 1 June, 1925, conveyed his interest to defendants 3 to 5 reciting in the deed that the original purchase was intended to be on their behalf.

(2.) The only persons contesting the suit are defendants 3 to 5. The first defendant, it may however be stated, originally filed a defence, but subsequently not only withdrew it but admitted the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) The villages in question are part of an impartible estate, of which the first defendant's father was the proprietor at the time the suit mortgage was granted. Defendants 3 to 5 contend that the alienation was made without legal necessity and is consequently not binding on the estate under Section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act (Madras Act II of 1904). The effect of that section is that the power of the proprietor in regard to alienating his estate or binding it by his debts, is co-extensive with that of a manager of a joint Hindu family, not being a father or grandfather; in other words, the Act does not recognise the doctrine either of antecedent debt or of pious obligation. See Venkatalingamma Nayanim Bahadur V/s. Arunachellam Chettiar (1924) 19 L.W. 132. The short question therefore is, was the alienation made for a purpose which would have been held justifiable, had it been made by a manager of coparcenery property? Before dealing with the question, we may observe (and it is conceded), that it is unnecessary to enquire in this suit, what interest, if any, defendants 3 to 5 have acquired in the suit property by reason of the alienations mentioned above (Exs. F and H).