Rajamannar, C.J.- All these appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 90 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court of Tanjore. That suit was brought on foot of a mortgage executed by one Ramiah Asari, on behalf of himself and his minor son, in favour of Natesa Asari. The suit was actually brought by the executor appointed under the will of Natesa Asari who died before the suit. ‘Ramiah Asari, the executant, was impleaded as the first defendant, and his son, who was then a minor, was impleaded as the second defendant, represented by his mother as guardian. A separate written statement was filed on his behalf challenging the validity of the mortgage. Two grounds, namely (1) that the properties comprised in the mortgage were trust properties of which Ramiah Asari was only a trustee and, (2) that even assuming that they were the ancestral properties of the family, the father, Ramiah Asari, had no power to make the alienation as there was neither any antecedent debt nor legal necessity to support it, were urged. There was also a plea raised that Ramiah Asari was addicted to immoral ways of life and the debts secured by the mortgage were incurred for such purposes. Several issues were raised, among which were issues relating to the validity of the mortgage and its binding nature on the second defendant. When the case came up for trial, a joint endorsement was made on the plaint both on behalf of the plaintiff and the minor son, the second defendant, in and by which the second defendant was exonerated, and it was agreed that his name may be removed from the record and issues 1 and 2, that is, the issues which related to the validity of the mortgage, need not be considered. The trial of the suit was thereafter confined to the first defendant and in the result there was a mortgage decree as prayed for against the first defendant only. In execution of this decree the decree-holder himself purchased the property. He applied for delivery and took delivery of the front portion of the mortgaged property which was a house ; but when he tried to take delivery of the rear portion he was obstructed on behalf of the minor, the second defendant. Two applications, 178 and 180 of 1953 were filed on his behalf, one to set aside the order of delivery of the front portion and the other for a declaration that the decree-holder was not entitled to possession of the remaining portion in his occupation. In these petitions the main point raised was that since he had been exonerated from the decree and his name was directed to be removed, it must be taken that the mortgage was deemed to be not binding on his share. It was also pleaded that as the properties covered by the mortgage were trust properties the decree was not binding on the trust. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard both these applications together held that there was nothing in the judgment in the mortgage suit to show that there was any adjudication that the debt was not binding on the minor son and the only remedy which he had was by way of a separate suit and in this view the learned Judge dismissed both the applications. Against this order two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, 660 of 1953 and 183 of 1954, were filed, which came on for disposal before Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the decree-holder respondent that the appeals were incompetent. The objection was overruled. On the merits the learned Judge agreed with the learned Subordinate Judge that the joint endorsement made by the plaintiff and on behalf of the minor son, the second defendant, did not have the effect of adjudication as to the question of validity of the mortgage, but he went on to hold that nevertheless it was open to the son to agitate the question as regards the validity of the mortgage in execution proceedings, though it was not expressly alleged in his petitions that the suit mortgage as such was not binding on his share. The learned Judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document