1. These two appeals arise out of two connected suits O.S. 49 of 1124 and O.S. 247 of 1124 of the District Court of Trivandrum. A.S. 339 of 1953 is the appeal from the former suit and A.S. 543 of 1953 from the latter. The circumstances leading to these appeals are as follows:

2. The two suits were jointly tried by the lower court and the leading judgment is the one in O.S. 49 of 1124. Both the suits are for redemption of identical properties mentioned in the plaints. They belonged to Kadavoor alias Kottarathu Matom, being a family of Oonnies and were outstanding on mortgage and Purakkadoms in favour of the 2nd defendant Lakshmi Pillay, whose rights passed to the 1st defendant Sivarama Konar (being the 2nd defendant in O.S. 247 of 1124). (The reference to parties and Exhibits are those in the leading case when not otherwise indicated). On 8.6.1123, the Karnavan of the Matom executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Thiruvadinatha Pillai (being the 3rd defendant in O.S. 247 of 1124), the consideration being mentioned as Rs. 5000. Only the Karnavan Sankararu was a party to it. Thiruvadinatha Pillai obtained consent deeds executed by some of the other members of the Matom in support of the sale deed, they being filed as Exts. E to G. On 18.3.1124 Sankararu and the seniormost Anandaravan, Govindararu executed another sale deed covering the identical properties in favour of the 3rd defendant Chidambarathanu Pillai, (being the plaintiff in O.S. 247 of 1124) the consideration mentioned being Rs. 12,500. Ext. K is the copy of it (Ext. B in O.S. 247 of 1124 being the original). There it was stated that the sale was in pursuance of an agreement executed on 15.12.1122. The said alleged agreement is filed as Ext. A (O.S. 247 of 1124). After Ext. K, the 3rd defendant obtained Exts. L, M, N, O and P from the rest of the members of the family by way of consent deeds. It may also be mentioned that

in Ext. K there is a reference that the assignment in favour of plaintiff as per Ext. D was caused to be executed due to misrepresentation on the part of the executee and was unsupported by consideration. Thus there were two sale deeds with regard to the plaint schedule properties executed on behalf of the Matom. Plaintiff filed his suit for redemption claiming his right under Ext. D on 18.8.1124. He claimed damages for waste also.

3. The 1st defendant standing in the shoes of the mortgagee contended that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was vitiated on account of material alteration by the plaintiff after registration, that is offended the provisions of the Malayalee Brahmin Act, denied waste and thus resisted the suit for redemption. The 3rd defendant raised similar contentions and further put forward his rights under the assignment in his favour and claimed that he alone was entitled to redemption. Meanwhile on 19.12.1124, the 3rd defendant filed O.S. 247 of 1124 claiming redemption basing his right on Ext. K, impleading Lakshmi P. Pillai, Sivarama Konar and Thiruvadinatha Pillai as defendants 1 to 3. There the mortgagee had no objection to redemption but the plaintiff here resisted the suit contending that his sale deed was prior to the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. Thus identical questions arose for consideration in both suits.

4. The lower court found that Kottarathu Matom family followed Marumakkathayam law, that Ext. D was not vitiated by material alteration, that the 3rd defendant, a stranger to the family could not question its validity on the ground that it was not executed by all the members and hence upheld the plaintiff's right for redemption on the basis of Ext. D, the earlier sale deed. It also found that the alleged agreement for sale in favour of Chidambarathanu Pillai was not genuine. The mortgagee was directed to pay Rs. 860 as compensation for waste, value of improvements also being awarded. The mortgagee filed A.S. 339 of 1953 from the decree in O.S. 49 of 1124, questioning the lower court's