Decree held to be on behalf of joint family.

Before we dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal, it is necessary to have clarification of certain facts connected with it. Otherwise,‘this interesting question of law cannot be properly discussed. It is contended for the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal that at the time the final decree was passed on 4th March, 1942, the joint family of which Narayana Ayyar was the manager when he filed O.S. No.127 of 1934, and obtained the preliminary decree on behalf of the joint family on 17th December, 1936, had become disrupted by means of a partition between Narayana Ayyar and the other coparceners by a registered deed, dated 9th September, 1939. If that is so, then, at the time the final decree was passed on 4th March, 1942, under the general law, Narayana Ayyar would not have represented the other members of the family. But Mr. Swaminathan contends that in the application for the passing of final decree, one of the quondam coparceners filed an affidavit stating that the family had got dissolved by means of a partition on 9th September, 1939, but in spite of, that, a request was made to the Court to pass a final decree in favour of Narayana Ayyar as the original decree-holder representing the joint family. The question, therefore, has to be decided whether the final decree, dated 4th March, 1942, eo nomine in the name of Narayana Ayyar was for the joint family of which he was once the head.. This can be properly decided only if the I.A. by which the Court was moved for passing final decree is looked into and its contents ascertained. Unfortunately, that I.A. No.432 of 1941 has not been sent up to this Court nor do we find that exhibited among the papers in these proceedings. We, therefore, directed the Subordinate Judge of Palghat, after taking such further and fresh evidence as the parties may desire, to submit a finding as to whether at the time of the passing of the final decree on 4th March, 1942, the Court which passed the decree was apprised of the previous partition among the members of the joint family on 9th September, 1939 and if the Court had been apprised of that fact, whether the final decree was only in favour of Narayana Ayyar in his individual capacity or in favour of Narayana Ayyar as representing all the members of the erstwhile joint family. The finding will be submitted to this Court within one month after the reopening of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palghat. One week thereafter for objections. On this finding, any other question of law that arises will be considered.

Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon for the appellant contends that the equity of redemption, which he has purchased, consists of a sum of Rs.3,000 due from Narayana Ayyar’s joint family as unpaid purchase money to the minors, who were some of the original owners of the property. The period of limitation for suing for that sum might expire soon. If it is found that the decree cannot be executed on account of the bar of limitation or other reasons, then he will have to file a separate suit probably before July this year, which cannot be done unless this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in the meanwhile. In the very nature of things, it is not possible to do so, in view of the fact that we have called for a finding. We, therefore, direct the contesting respondents in this Letters Patent Appeal, who were the appellants in C.M.S.A. No.37 of 1948 to deposit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat a sum of Rs.3,000 which might be taken to be the approximate amount of the money for which the original vendors have unpaid vendors’ lien within one week after the reopening of the Subordinate Judge’s Court in June. This amount will remain in Court subject to the result of this Letters Patent Appeal. If the appellant here succeeds and we find that the decree in O.S. No.127 of 1934 has become unexecutable, it is open to the appellant to apply to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palghat, for the payment of the sum due to him. If, on the other