Ramaprasada Rao, J.-Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant and plaintiffs 6 to 8 are the sons of the second defendant. The first and the second defendants are the sons of one Vadamalai Pillai who, in this case has to be considered as the common ancestor. He died in 1926 leaving behind him his widow, Palani Ammal and his two sons, defendants 1 and 2 who were then minors. It is common ground that until the first and the second defendants became majors in course of time, Palani Ammal was managing the family properties. On the evidence on record, it is seen that Palani Ammal herself had to borrow, either by mortgaging properties or otherwise, for the maintenance and preservation of the family properties. After the first and the second defendants became majors and took over the family properties and administered them, they had to, in turn, incur expenses not only in connection with the family but also for purposes connected thereto. In the course of such administration, both defendants 1 and 2 had to borrow on mortgages, promissory notes, usufructuary mortgages, etc. Every precaution, however, was taken in the course of such borrowings by each of the first and the second

Click Here to Read the rest of this document