The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the wording of the document, is crucial in determining the existence of a charge over the properties.

1. Defendants 6 and 7 are the appellants. The short point for determination in this second appeal is whether under the partition deed, Ext. A, which was executed by the members of the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5, a charge has been created over properties bearing survey numbers 58 and 62 which form the subject matter of this second Appeal. The facts may be briefly stated. In the partition deed, Ext. A, which was executed by the members of the tarwad of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5, it was expressly recited that there were two debts to be discharged. One was a decree debt under the decree in O.S. No. 120 of 1101. That was a suit filed by a member of the Bar, Mr. T.K. Velu Pillai, for fees due to him for conducting a tarwad suit, O.S. No. 29 of 1089. The plaintiff in the suit from which this second appeal arises had put forward a claim for Rs. 640 as the total amount expended by him out of his own separate funds in connection with this litigation. The other members of the tarwad had admitted the correctness of this amount due to the plaintiff. They had also induced Mr. T.K. Velu Pillai to give up a portion of the amount due to him under the decree in O.S. No. 120 of 1101. In the family partition deed, there was a clause inserted to the effect that the properties bearing survey numbers 58 and 62 were to be sold by defendants 1 to 5 and converted into cash. Out of the sale proceeds the decree debt was to be discharged and the debt due to the plaintiff was also to be paid. A total sum of Rs. 1500 was set apart for discharging both these obligations. There was another debt due to the plaintiff which does not form the subject matter of this second appeal. In accordance with this clause in the partition deed, the properties were sold to the 6th defendant. Defendants 2 to 5 joined in this transfer but it was subsequently ratified by the first defendant who did not sign as one of the vendors in the sale deed, Ext. V. The 6th defendant was directed to discharge the two obligations, namely to pay off the decree debt and to pay the plaintiff with the amount retained in his hands. When he ascertained the amount payable for satisfying the decree, it was found that the whole amount entrusted to him had to be paid for that purpose. He paid the amount and got the decree struck off, full satisfaction having been entered. But there was no balance left in his hands for discharging the obligation in favour of the plaintiff. The 6th defendant assigned his rights in the properties purchased by him under Ext. V to the 7th defendant pending the litigation. Therefore the 7th defendant has not got any higher rights than the 6th defendant, although he has joined in this second appeal. The question turns upon the nature of the liability created by the partition deed, Ext. A. If by the partition deed a charge was created over the two items which were purchased by the 6th defendant from defendants 1 to 5, then the plaintiff will be entitled to enforce that charge and it would not be open to the appellants to say that owing to the whole amount entrusted to him having been utilised for discharging the decree debt, there is nothing left in his hands for paying the plaintiff. Therefore, the determination of the suit depended mainly upon the question as to whether a charge was created over survey Nos. 58 and 62 by the relevant clause in Ext. A which directed a sale of these two items of properties.

2. Both the courts below have arrived at the conclusion that a charge has been created and they have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

3. On behalf of defendants 6 and 7 who are the appellants in this second appeal, their learned counsel argues that this view taken by the courts below is erroneous and on a perusal of the partition deed, Ext. A, it would be clear that no charge was created over the two items of properties which form the subject matter of this litigation.

4. To appreciate the contentions of the parties it is ne