The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the implied contract of indemnity under S.55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act and the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act in relation to the period of limitation for a suit for compensation for the breach of a contract to indemnify.

1. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 7,8 and 9 are the appellants. The suit is for damages. The plaintiff is the karnavan of one of the thavazhies of the Koratty Swaroopam. The Swaroopam was partitioned under an award decree in C.S. No. 172 of 1101 on the file of the Anjikaimal District Court. Plaintiff's thavazhi is A4 thavazhi in that partition. Defendants 1 to 9 belong to B2 thavazhi. In the partition, a property known as 'Pulani Krishi' belonging to the Swaroopam was set apart to the share of B2 thavazhi with liability to discharge certain debts charged on it. One of the debts was due to Elayathampuran Kovilakom. That debt was not discharged by B2 thavazhi and the Kovilakom sued the Swaroopom in O.S. No. 34 of 1106 of the Anjikaimal District Court. Properties belonging to the other thavazhies of the Swaroopom including A4 thavazhi were also attached by the Kovilakom. The decree that was obtained in the case was assigned to Dr. Girijavallabha Menon and in execution of the decree he attached some more properties belonging to

the Swaroopom. Since B2 thavazhi was unable to discharge its liabilities the thavazhi appointed the 19th defendant in the case, Paliath Kochunni Achen, as its trustee for administering its properties and discharging the liabilities. For paying off the decree debt in O.S. No. 34 of 1106 and discharging other liabilities of B2 thavazhi the 19th defendant assigned plaint items 1 to 18 in favour of the plaintiff's thavazhi under Ext. XVII dated 15.4.1112. The consideration for the assignment deed was Rs. 4,105-13-4. Out of this Rs. 3,409-8-7 was reserved with the plaintiff's thavazhi for payment towards the decree debt in O.S. No.34 of 1106. Another sum of Rs. 210-7-5 was reserved for discharging another debt of B2 thavazhi. The plaintiff's thavazhi paid the sum of Rs. 210-7-5 in Dhanu 1112 and the other sum of Rs. 3,409-8-7 on 11.12.1115. The reason for the delay in making the payment of Rs. 3,409-8-7 was that there were two undisclosed encumbrances on some of the properties included in the assignment deed, Ext. XVII. The 10th defendant had obtained a decree against B2 thavazhi in O.S. No. 308 of 1111 of the Irinjalakuda Munsiff's Court and, in execution of that decree, had attached plaint items 1 to 3. Plaintiff's attempt to avert the sale of those items did not succeed and the Original Suit instituted by him for setting aside the sale did not also meet with success. The 10th defendant obtained delivery of possession of the properties on 27.8.1113. The 11th defendant had sued B2 thavazhi in O.S. No. 1011 of 1111 of the hinjalakuda Munsiff's Court and obtained a decree charged on items 4,11 and 12. In execution of that decree items Nos. 4,11 and 12 were purchased by him and he obtained delivery of possession of those items in Kanni 1116. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff's thavazhi sustained a loss of Rs. 2,105-13-4, Rs. 1,655-5-4 on account of the sale of items 1 to 3 and Rs. 450-8-0 on account of the sale of items 4,11 and 12. Interest was claimed on these amounts at 6 per cent per annum from the dates on which the properties were lost to the thavazhi. In the award partition decree there is an indemnity clause to the effect that if, on account of the default of any thavazhi to discharge the debts allotted to its share, any other thavazhi is put to any loss the thavazhi that sustains loss will be entitled to recoup the same from the properties allotted to the share of the defaulting thavazhi. Accordingly, the amount of damages was claimed as a charge on the plaint schedule properties which were set apart to the share of B2 thavazhi under the award partition.

2. Defendants 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 to 18, 20, 21, 30 to 38 and 40 contested the suit. Defendants 4, 7, 8 and 9, who are members of B2 thavazhi, contended that the plaintiff's thavazhi was not entitled to claim any damages against B2 thavazhi, that their remedy, if any, was against the 19th defendant, the executant of Ext. XVII that the