P.R. Raman, J.

Both the above appeals arising out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in A.S.Nos.326 and 346 of 1992. The two appeals were preferred by the common defendants in the suit O.S.No.323/84 and 548/87 respectively on the files of the Subordinate Judges Court, Trichur. The respondent-Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They started the kuri (chits). The suit O.S.No.323/84 was for recovery of 12 instalments due for the period from 211.1981 to 211.1984 and the suit O.S.No.548/87 was for recovery of the entire future subscriptions due under the transaction other than the period covered by the earlier suit. The trial court decreed the suit O.S.No.323/84 for an amount of Rs.40,915/-with 12% interest on the sum of Rs.34,800/- from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree and suit O.S.No.548/87 was decreed for Rs.83,820.68 with 12% interest on the sum of Rs.63,800/- from the date of suit till date of decree and 6% interest per annum thereafter. Preliminary decree for sale charged on the plaint schedule property was passed in both the suits. Challenging the decree the defendants preferred appeals. Before the learned Singe Judge three questions were raised. The first question was that the decree passed in an equitable mortgage as granted by the trial court is not sustainable since there is no subsisting relationship of debtor and creditor between the defaulting subscriber and the foreman of the chit and hence the decree to that extent is bad. Though specifically this contention was not raised before the trial court, the learned Single Judge permitted the said question to be raised and considered in the light of the full bench decision of this court in P.K.Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (AIR 1975 Ker. 47), the larger bench decision of this court in Janardhana Mallan v. Gangadharan (AIR 1983 Ker. 178) and the decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.Subbarama Sastri v. K.S.Raghavan (AIR 1987 SC 1257) and took the view that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Subbarama Sastris case (AIR 1987 SC 1257) as having approved the decision in Achuthans case, the decision in in Janardhana Mallans case cannot be taken to lay down the correct law and overruled the contention of the appellant. We will revert to this question after we dispose of the other contentions in this appeal.

2. The second contention urged on behalf of the appellant was that the plaintiff has violated the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 and contended that there was no previous sanction of the Government as required under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Chitties Act and that the same is not registered. In the light of the penal provision under Section 60 for contravention of the provisions, the suit could not be maintained by the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge after referring to the pleadings and evidence in the case and also the decision of the trial court, held that the kury price book shows that the foreman of the kury is the Mangalore Branch of the plaintiff-company. Reference was made to Exts.A51 and A52 in support of the above finding. Reliance was also made to the evidence of P.W.1. It was found that the appellant had no case in the written statement that the foreman of the kury was not in the Mangalore Branch. Even though a contention was raised that the foreman of the chity was really in the head office at Trichur, the same was not accepted. The learned Single Judge held that the court below referred to the relevant documents produced in the case and in the light of the relevant documents coupled with the statement contained in the written statement and the memorandum of appeal, it is not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the foreman of the chit is the head office at Trichur and not the Mangalore Branch of the plaintiff company. The learned Single Judge further held that the Kerala Chitties Act h