A KUTTAN Vs. PKALLIANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant obtained a decree against the second defendant who is a karnavan of the tarwad directing him either, to execute a kanom or to pay damages. THE kanom was not exesuted and the 1st defendant in execution of the decree for damages sold the property and bought it. THE Subordinate Judge has held that the decree is not binding on the plaintiff s tarwad. He says that there is reason to believe that the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant acted in collusion but no such case was made. However that may may be, he points out that the decree was a personal decree against the 2nd defendant and not a decree against the tarwad. That being so, it was for the 1st defendant to show that the decree was obtained, as a matter of fact, against the tarwad for money borrowed for tarwad necessity. This view of his law is borne out by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vasudevan v. Sankaran 20 M. 129 : 7 M.L.J. 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 90 THEre is no evidence to show that either the 2nd defendant was sued in his capacity as karnavan or that as a matter of fact the agreement to execute the kanom was for tarwad purposes.

(2.) THE second appeal is dismissed with costs.