1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff is the liquidator of the Gothuruthy Educational and Industrial Company Limited. That company started a kuri in which one Augustinju, the predecessor¬in-interest of the defendants, joined one-fourth ticket. After the death of Augustinju, the defendants paid subscriptions for the kuri and they bid one-eighth ticket. For payment of the future subscriptions they executed a kuri security bond, Ext. A, on 5.12.1103 charging the plaint schedule properties. The bond contained the usual acceleration clause by which the executants undertook to pay the whole future subscriptions in a lump if default was committed in the payment of any one instalment. Subscriptions were paid only till the 23rd instalment, and default was committed from the 24th instalment which fell due on 10.10.1108. The starter, company, sent a registered notice on 1.11.1112 demanding future subscriptions in a lump. But the Cochin Kuri Proclamation dated 29.11.1111, which was further extended by Proclamation V of 1112, prohibited the company from suing for the whole future subscriptions. Paragraph 2 of the proclamation provided:

"Starters of Kuries shall institute suits against defaulting prized subscribers only for the actual amounts due on account of defaulted instalment or instalments, and such suits shall be instituted in the court of original jurisdiction where a suit for the entire amount claimable on account of the default according to the terms of the kuri security bond will lie. If the defaulting subscriber pays into court, before the suit comes up for evidence, the amount sued for together with court costs, the suit shall be dismissed and the amount paid into court will be handed over to the plaintiff. If the defaulting subscriber does not so pay into court such amounts, the plaintiff may apply to the court, on paying the necessary court fee, to convert the suit into a suit for the full amount due to him according to the terms of the kuri security bond sued upon in which case a decree for such amount shall be passed."

Accordingly, the company instituted a suit as O.S. No. 731 of 1118 of the District Munsiff's Court of Ernakulam against the defendants. Ext. I is the copy of the plaint in that case. On the date of that suit 13 instalments were in arrears, i.e., those from 10.10.1108 to 10.6.1118. 'A' valuation in the plaint covered the amount due for those 13 instalments and interest thereon. The amount due for all the 18 instalments from 10.10.1108 till the termination of the kuri was shown in the'B' valuation in the plaint. As enjoined by the Proclamation, the plaintiff asked for a decree for the amount covered by the 'A' valuation in case the defendants would deposit the same before the suit came up for evidence. There was also a prayer that in case the amount covered by the 'A' valuation was not deposited by the defendants before the suit came up for evidence the plaintiff might be allowed to pay court fee on the additional amount covered by the "B" valuation and might be given a decree for the whole amount. The first defendant in the case contended that there was no default in the payment of subscriptions and that subscriptions had been paid till the 39th instalments. The trial court found that subscriptions were in arrears from the 24th instalment. Since the question whether there was default in the payment of subscriptions was in dispute between the parties the plaintiff did not pay court fee on the additional amount covered by the 'B' valuation. The trial court gave a decree for the amount covered by the 'A' valuation. Defendants 1 and 5 preferred an appeal from the decree while the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal praying for a decree for the whole amount covered by the 'B' valuation in the plaint. The plaintiff also paid court fee on the additional amount claimed by him. The District Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. This is what was stated in the judgment about