The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Kerala Chitties Act and the Companies Act, specifically regarding the validity of an equitable mortgage, compliance with statutory requirements, and the definition of a trading corporation.

These appeals are by the common defendants in O.S.323 of 1984 and O.S.548 of 1987 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichur. The respondent in both the appeals is the same company, a company registered under the Companies Act. The respondent company started a kuri and both the suits were for recovery of money due under a kuri security bond in respect of future instalments payable monthly of a prized chit. The first suit O.S.323 of 1984 was for recovery of 12 instalments due from 24-11-1981 to 24-11-1984. The second suit O.S.548 of 1987 was for recovery of the entire future subscriptions due under the transaction other man the period covered by the earlier suit. Though various contentions were raised by the defendants the trial court overruled the said contentions and granted the respondent-plaintiff a decree for realisation of Rs. 40915/- with 12% interest on the sum of Rs. 34800/- from the date of suit till date of decree and at the rate of 6 % per annum from date of decree in O.S.323 of 1984 and a decree for realisation of Rs. 83820.68 with 12% interest on the sum of Rs. 63800 from the date of suit till date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter in O.S .548 of 1987. Preliminary decrees for sale charged on the plaint schedule property was passed in both the suits. The defendants challenged these decrees before this court in these appeals.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants raised three questions before this court. Firstly he contended that the decree passed on an equitable mortgage as granted by the trial court is not sustainable' since there was no subsisting relationship of debtor and creditor between the defaulting subscriber and the foreman of the chit and hence the decree to that extent was bad. It is seen that this aspect was not raised before the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in Janardhana Mallan v. Gangadharan (1983 KLT 197 = A.I.R 1983 Ker.178) shows that a subscriber to a chit does not incur a debt on entering into a chitty agreement and hence there was no relationship of debtor and creditor merely because the defendants executed the kuri security bond undertaking to pay the future. instalments mat would fall due. This Full Bench decision had actually overruled the earlier Full Bench decision of this court reported in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT 806 = A.I.R 1975 Ker. 47). But the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision reported in Subbaramasastri v. K.S. Raghavan (1987(1) K.L.T 753 = A.I.R 1987 SC 1257) approved the decision in Achuthan's case to the effect that a subscriber on executing the bond really becomes a debtor for the prized amount paid to him and the facility of repayment in instalment is only a concessional facility which was capable of being withdrawn by the foreman of the chit. In Subbaramasastri's case no doubt the decision in Janardhana Mallan's case was not specifically referred to. But the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court is clearly that the decision in Janardhana Mallan's case cannot be considered be good law any more. In fact this very aspect came up for consideration before this court in MarAprem v. Narendranath (1990(1) KLT 866). The argument was raised before the court that since the decision in Janardhana Mallan's case had not been specifically referred to and overruled by the Supreme Court the said decision continued to be good law and hence as far as this court was concerned the position was governed by the ratio of Janardhana Mallan's case. After referring to the three decisions referred to above and noticing that the Supreme Court in Subbaramasastri's case had specifically approved the law laid down in Achuthan's case, Shamsuddin, J. held that in view of the decision in Subbaramasastri's case Janardhana Mallan's case could not be taken to be laying down the correct law or could not be followed. I am in respectful agreement