The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of acknowledgment in the context of mortgage rights and the implications of junior members' possession in a tarwad.

Headnote:
alienations - joint undivided status - acknowledgment - mortgage - lease - redemption - limitation - possession - tarwad - karnavan - junior member - acknowledgment - adverse possession
Fact of the Case:

The appeal arose from a suit by a junior member in a branch of the Kuttamathu Nair tarwad to set aside certain alienations and a partition by the members of the other branch. The court found that the plaintiff and defendants constituted an undivided tarwad and that the properties belonged to the common tarwad.
Finding of the Court:

The court held in favor of the plaintiff regarding the acknowledgment of the mortgage and the right to redeem the properties. It also discussed the issue of adverse possession by junior members against the tarwad.
Issues: The issues included the possession of plaint schedule items, the nature of the mortgage, the right to redeem the properties, and whether the right to redeem was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was sufficient acknowledgment in law by the branch of defendants 6 to 15 of the mortgage and their position at the date of the suit could be assimilated to that of a mortgagee only of the items concerned. The court also discussed the implications of junior members' possession and the doctrine of acknowledgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a junior member in a branch of the Kuttamathu Nair tarwad in Pallichal Pakuthy, to set aside certain alienations as well as a partition effected by and among the members of the other branch of defendants 6 to 15 as if it had long ago become divided. The plaintiff's case was that all the evidence afforded by registered documents as well as judicial pronouncements pointed only one way, viz., the joint undivided status of the members of both the branches. The court below after elaborate discussion held against the contentions of the defendants 6 to 15 and found that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 constituted an undivided tarwad and that the properties scheduled to the plaint belonged to the common tarwad. This finding though disputed in the appeal memorandum is not questioned before us. The matter which is pressed before us concerns one other question between the parties which formed the subject of issues 4 to 6 in the case. They ran as follows:

"Are the defendants 6 to 15 in possession of plaint schedule items .1 to 9 on the basis of the document of 1001 as contended for in para 4 of the plaint and paras 20 to 22 of the replication?

"Is the document of 1001 a mortgage and Kuzhikanam or is it a lease and Kuzhikanam? In either case is the plaintiff entitled to redeem plaint items 1 to 9 on behalf of the tarwad on payment of the amount covered by the document and the value of improvements ?

Is the right to redeem the above-said properties barred by limitation?"

2. This mortgage of 1001 has been filed in the case as Ext, E. It covers items 1 to 9 of the plaint schedule and was in favour of strangers from whom the 6th defendant's grand-mother Kali Narayani obtained a release under Ext. D dated 15-1-1035. Subsequently on 27-6-1071 Ananthan Aiyappan her son and karanavan of the branch of defendants 6 to 15 executed Ext. CD mortgage in favour of other strangers wherein he referred to the prior transactions Exts. E and D as leading to the instant one. The plaintiff relied on Exts. D and CD as acknowledgments within the meaning of S.19 of the Limitation Act so as to enable him, on behalf of the tarwad, to recover the items 1 to 9 from the defendants 6 to 15 on foot of Ext. E mortgage, though on payment of value or improvements. The rival contention of defendants 6 to 15 was that Exts. D or CD did not constitute any or sufficient acknowledgment under law and that the mortgage had in consequence become barred and the defendants 6 to 15 had become absolute owners. The court below held in favour of the plaintiff on this question observing at the same time that the position arising from the acknowledgment was not very seriously disputed by the learned counsel for defendants 6 to 15. Mr. T. K. Narayana Pillai (N) appearing on behalf of the appellants urged before us that it was wrong for the lower court to have said that the defendants 6 to 15 did not seriously press before it the insufficiency of the acknowledgments relied on. Now it is well-settled that the record made by a court in its judgment or order in respect of what happened before it, cannot without more, be allowed to be assailed before an appellate court and we would accordingly be perfectly right in ignoring learned counsel's disclaimer. However we do not do so for there is no merit in the contention either. Exhibit CD is by Ananthan Aiyappan describing himself as of the Kuttamathu tarwad in favour of certain junior members in that same tarwad. The property is recited to be 'our' tarwad property which had been outstanding on pattom and Kuzhikanam executed by the karnavan in 1001 (under Ext. E) and got release of by Kali Narayani the mother of the executant in 1035 (under Ext. D). Learned counsel says that Ext. D being a release and not an assignment, in terms, of Ext. E mortgage could not be construed as an acknowledgment of the existence of the mortgage right and that on the other hand, it has to be construed as evidencing an e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document