ARUMUGHAM CHETTY Vs. MUTHU KOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought to obtain a mortgage decree for sale on the mortgage document Exhibit H, dated 11th May 1903, executed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,150. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is still a minor, while the 2nd defendant was a minor on the date of the mortgage-bond Exhibit H.

(2.) According to the recital in Exhibit H the sum of Rs. 1,150 mentioned in it as consideration is made up as follows: (a) Rs. 833-8 0 being the sum due on the registered mortgage-bond Exhibit G of 1899; (6) Rs. 130-1-0 due on the simple debt bond of 1902 Exhibit K; (c) Rs. 42 received by the 1st defendant for excavating a well in the family garden; (d) Rs. 100 for discharging the debt of Nattukottai Karuppan Chettyar; (e) Rs. 43-7-0 received for excavating the well already mentioned and for family expenses; Total Rs. 1,150.

(3.) The 1st defendant (the father) as usual remained ex parte. His sons (the defendants Nos. 2 and 3) contended that their two-third share in the mortgaged properties cannot be affected by the mortgage because "the suit debt was not contracted either for family benefit or for any necessity binding on the family" (4th paragraph of the written statement).