A mortgage executed by a guardian on behalf of a minor is void if it is not for necessity.

P.K. Subramonia Iyer, J.

This is a plaintiff’s appeal against the dismissal of his suit (O.S. 222/1122), on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal, by the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of that Court dated 14th August 1950.

2. Plaintiff is the posthumous son and only issue of Srinivasa Venkiteswara Kummathy, a Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin governed by Hindu Law (Mitakshara), through his second wife Devaky whom he married as his first wife Lekshmi proved barren. Venkiteswara died in Mithunam 1102 M.E. in his 37th Year (Ex. XXXII) leaving him surviving his two widows as also his step-mother Rugmani alias Radha who was the eldest member of the family and who had an only daughter Puthamma alias Saraswathy. Radha assumed management of the affairs of the family on Venkiteswara’s death. Venkiteswara was a grocer. He continued the trade started and conducted by his father under the name and style of “Srinivasa Kammathy & Son”. Govinda Menon (PW.3) who was the accountant in the business for over 25 years continued it for a few weeks after Venkiteswara’s demise but one of Venkiteswara’s creditors to whom was owing an amount of over Rs. 1200/- filed a suit (O.S. 906/1102), attached before judgment the stock in trade and all movables in the shop, and the business then and therefore terminated. Four similar suits followed, the last of which was filed towards the end of Chingom 1103. The aggregate of these claims exceeded Rs. 4,000/- besides costs. (Exts. G = XXXI, H = XXX, J = XXIX, K = XXVIII and L= XXVII, certified copies of the Suit Registers). Pursuant to the attachment in O.S. 906/1102, cash amounting to Rs. 97-2-1 was secured and the movables attached were sold through Court. The total amount thus realised was Rs. 1162-1-10 (See Exts. W and Y, certified copies of the Court cash book). Venkiteswara had, in the year 1100, hypothecated his residential house with the appurtenant jenm paramba (item No. 3 in the plaint schedule) to the Nedugadi Bank Ltd. to secure an overdraft up to Rs.5000/- (Ext. XXXII) under which there was a substantial balance outstanding. Radha had a deposit in that Bank. She had filed O.S. 206 of 1102 challenging certain acts of Venkiteswara as not binding upon the family and upon her rights therein. The first two items of property in the plaint which constitute the bulk with an extent of 3 acres 19 cents belong in jenm to the Cochin Thiumala Devaswom. The Devaswom had leased them out on the verumpattom. They lie contiguous to the third item. The plaintiff’s grandfather Srinivasa Kammathy purchased the lessee’s right, attorned to the Devaswom and executed two pattomchits in the year 1076 which contained stipulations retricting the lessee’s right to compensation for trees on eviction. The Cochin Sirkar assumed management of the Devaswom under the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, I of 1081, and in 1094 demanded execution of fresh pattamchits by lessees on certain new terms which were proposed. Srinivasa Kammathy not having executed the proposed pattomchit, the Devaswom granted a melpattom to Sri. K.J. Guna Pai who filed O.S. Nos. 141 and 142 of 1096 as 2nd plaintiff with the Devaswom as the 1st, for eviction with arrears of rent for 3 years and for future rent at Rs. 4-12-3 and Rs. 73-7-1 respectively, after his (Srinivasa’s) death against Venkiteswara. Venkiteswara contested. He claimed full value of trees notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the covenant contained in the leases. This was one of the two matters of contest. The other related to the enforceability of the melpattom itself, the grant of which was contended to have been after Srinivasa Kammathy had accepted the offer of the Devaswom for the execution of fresh pattomchits on new terms. Pending those suits Venkiteswara executed a fresh pattamchit (Ext. 19) whereupon the Devaswom withdrew from the suits. The competency of the melpattomdar to continue the suits thereafter was questioned. All pleas were repelled and decrees