MUTHUSWAMI KAVUNDAN Vs. PONNAYYA KAVUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 5,035 alleged to be due on a deed of mortgage executed by the 4 plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the 29th November, 1918.

(2.) One Ponnia Gounden died in 1909 leaving a widow (4 plaintiff), three daughters and a son by another wife. On Ponnia Gounden's death his son succeeded him and died in 1910. His step-mother, though not the heir under Hindu Law, took possession of the estate, got pattas transferred to her name and was in enjoyment of the properties. The defendants claiming to be reversioners filed a suit in 1915 which they withdrew and filed another suit O.S. No. 478 of 1916 to recover possession of the properties on the ground that the 4 plaintiff was not the heir to the last male holder. The suit was disposed of on an alleged compromise. The widow denied she ever compromised the suit and the case was remanded by the Appellate Court and finally disposed of in 1920 in favour of the reversioners. The widow all along denied that they were the reversioners or had any right to the properties. While the widow was in possession she executed a promissory-note, dated 22nd April, 1915 in favour of the 1 plaintiff for Rs. 850 alleging that the money was borrowed to discharge her husband's debts. In 1915 this note was renewed (Exhibit B). She again borrowed alleging that money was required for the marriage of her daughter and executed a promissory-note in favour of the 1 plaintiff for Rs. 1,000 (Exhibit C). In 1918 she executed a pronote Exhibit D in favour of the 1 plaintiff for Rs. 2,350 in renewal of the notes Exhibit B and Exhibit C. She executed a mortgage Exhibit E for Rs. 4,000 in November, 1918 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3. 2nd and 3 plaintiffs are the 1 plaintiff's sons. The consideration is said to be the amounts due on the prior promissory-notes and further moneys advanced to the 4 plaintiff for expenses of the litigation.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit. As regards the consideration he was of opinion that only Rs. 526-8-0 made up of Rs. 200 spent for the marriage of her daughters and Rs. 101-8-0 paid in respect of L-2 and Rs. 225 Under Exhibit L, her husband's debt, were for purposes binding on the reversioners and that the suit was barred by limitation.